Pintu Ray vs State Of Orissa
2025 Latest Caselaw 2980 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pintu Ray vs State Of Orissa on 28 January, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                  CRLMC NO.2804 OF 2024

(Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing of proceeding in G.R. Case
No.190/2023 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh)


      Pintu Ray
                                                ...       Petitioner

                                  -versus-
      State of Orissa
      and another                               ...       Opposite Parties


  Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:

         For Petitioner:                   Mr.Soumya Ranjan Das,
                                           Advocate

                                             -versus-

        For Opp.Party No.1: Mr.R.B.Mishra,
                            Addl. Standing Counsel

       For Opp.Party No.2: None

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         CORAM:

                        JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                   JUDGMENT

28.1.2025.

Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner is the sole accused in G.R. Case

No.190/2023 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M.,

Panposh at Rourkela facing trial for allegedly

committing the offences under Sections 493/417/506

of I.P.C. In the present application filed under Section

482 of Cr.P.C., he seeks quashment of the aforesaid

criminal proceedings.

2. The facts of the case are that on 01.12.2023, an

F.I.R. was lodged by the victim (name withheld) before

the I.I.C., Mahila P.S., Sector-3, Rourkela stating

therein that she and the Petitioner accused had

married in the Court on 13.1.2023 at Rourkela. It was

further stated that she and the Petitioner had a

relationship of more than 4 years. They had earlier

married in Samaleswari Temple at Sector-5 on

14.4.2021 and were living as husband and wife.

However, the Petitioner being instigated by his parents

inflicted physical torture on her demanding

Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry.

On such complaint being lodged, Rourkela

Mahila P.S. Case No.2/2023 was registered under

Sections 493/417/506 of I.P.C. and investigation was

taken up. Upon completion of investigation, charge

sheet was submitted against the Petitioner-accused for

the aforementioned offences on 31.10.2023. The

Petitioner had originally approached this Court in

CRLMC No.993/2023, which was disposed of by order

dated 5.5.2023 directing him to surrender before the

Court below and to move for bail. Accordingly, the

Petitioner surrendered in the Court of learned

S.D.J.M., Panposh on 16.5.2023 and was released on

bail on the same day.

3. Heard Mr. S.R.Das, learned counsel for the

Petitioner-accused and Mr. R.B.Mishra, learned Addl.

Standing Counsel for the State.

4. Mr. Das would argue that when the admitted

case of the victim is that she and the Petitioner had a

love relationship for more than 4 years and were also

married in the temple and Court, the F.I.R. allegations

can only be treated as exaggerated. He further submits

that even otherwise, none of the offences as alleged are

made out against the Petitioner. Mr. Das also refers to

the statement of the victim recorded under Section

161 of Cr.P.C. to submit that the prosecution case as

laid is not at all made out for which continuance of the

case would amount to abuse of the process of the

Court.

5. Mr. R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel

for the State, on the other hand, argues that there is a

clear allegation of demand of Rs.2,00,000/- by the

Petitioner from the victim and of subjecting her to

physical torture for such reason. Moreover, it is clear

from the materials on record that the Petitioner is

guilty of deceiving the victim that he had married her

only with an intent to make an unlawful gain by

utilizing her.

6. Before proceeding to examine the merits of the

rival contentions noted above, this Court would like to

keep in mind the principles for exercising inherent

power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at the outset. It is

trite law that if the offences alleged are, on the face of

it, not made out, continuance of the case would be an

abuse of the process of Court and in such event, the

High Court can exercise its inherent power to stop the

proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the

celebrated decision of the Apex Court rendered in the

case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan

Lal and others; reported in 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 335,

wherein certain guidelines were issued for exercise of

inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482

of Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein

below;

"(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of

a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge".

7. Coming to the facts of the present case, as already

stated, as per the F.I.R. the Petitioner and the victim

were in a love relationship for more than 4 years and

had also married in a temple on 14.4.2021. They lived

as husband and wife for the entire period and finally

married in the Court at Rourkela on 13.1.2023. The

victim nowhere alleged that the Petitioner had deceived

her in the marriage or caused her to believe that she

was married to him though in fact he had not. Section

493 of I.P.C. reads as follows;

"493. Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.-Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 493 of I.P.C. are as follows;

"(1)The accused practised deception on a woman;

(2)The intention of the accused to practise deceit was to induce a woman (complainant) to believe that she was lawfully married to the accused;

(3)There was cohabitation or sexual intercourse as a result of the deception."

8. The victim being examined by the I.O. has stated

more or less the same thing in the F.I.R. about the

occurrence. This Court fails to understand as to how

the offence under Section 493 of I.P.C is made out

when the question of deception by the Petitioner is

automatically nullified on the face of the admission by

the victim herself that they had a consensual

relationship that culminated in marriage in the temple

as also in Court. So, the question of the petitioner

deceiving the victim that he had lawfully married her

though he had not, does not arise at all.

9. Coming to the offence under Section 417 of

I.P.C., which is punishment for cheating as defined

under Section 415 of I.P.C., it is the settled position of

law that the following essential ingredients of cheating

are required to be satisfied to bring home the offence.

"(i) deception of any person;

(ii) whereby fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or

(iii) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he was not so deceived;

(iv) which act or omission is caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property."

10. Again, reading the F.I.R. or the statement of the

victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. does not

at all indicate as to how or in what manner the

accused deceived the victim either by any false or

misleading representation or by any other action or

omission. All that has been alleged is that the victim

was subjected to physical torture along with the

demand for Rs.2,00,000/- from her father. In the

circumstances, the demand cannot be construed as

cheating within the meaning of Section 415 of I.P.C.

As such, the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. is also

not made out.

11. From a bare reading of the F.I.R. and the

statement of the victim there is no whisper of any

threat being held out by the Petitioner save and except

that there was a demand for Rs.2 lakhs. Though there

is a feeble allegation that the victim was subjected to

physical torture yet, the details thereof have not been

stated in the least. The F.I.R. also does not mention

any injury having been sustained by the victim.

12. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis made

hereinbefore, the only possibility that emerges on a

reading of the F.I.R. and the charge sheet including the

statement of the victim and other witnesses is that

there was some discord and dissension between the

petitioner and the victim, who are none other than

husband and wife. There is a strong possibility that

such marital discord was blown out of proportion

probably at the heat of the moment. For such reason

therefore, a definite criminal intention cannot be

imputed to the Petitioner. Moreover, this is a case

where, even if the prosecution case is accepted on its

face value, the offences alleged are not made out at all

in view of what has been narrated herein before. Thus,

continuance of the proceedings would continuously be

an abuse of the process of Court.

13. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the CRLMC is

allowed. The proceedings in G.R. Case No.190/2023 of

the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh are hereby

quashed.

..................................

                                                             (Sashikanta Mishra)
      Ashok Kumar Behera                                            Judge

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack