Orissa High Court
Manoranjan Tarei @ Tarai vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 11 March, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.152 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Section 397 read with Section
401 of Cr.P.C.)
Manoranjan Tarei @ Tarai .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Odisha .... Opposite Parties
2. Srikrushna Mandal
For Petitioners : Mr. Sanket Kanungo, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Sahoo, AGA
Mr. Pulakesh Mohanty, Adv.
(Informant)
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING : 29.11.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 11.03.2025
V. Narasingh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Kanungo,
learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sahoo, AGA and learned counsel
for the Opposite party No.2, Mr. Mohanty.
Revisionist-husband assails the framing of charge by the
learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T. Case No.220 of 2021
by order dated 25.03.2022 U/s. 498-A & 306 of IPC vide
Annexure-1 and seeks the following relief.
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to set aside the order of charge
dtd. 25.03.2022 framed against the petitioner U/s. 498-A, 306
1PC in S.T. Case No. 220 of 2021 arising out of
Rasgovindapur P.S. Case No. 226 of 2020 pending before the
Court of the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Baripada, in
the interest of justice.
xxx xxx xxx"
Case of the accused:-
1. The factual matrix of the case, is that on 19.11.2020 the Opp.
Party No. 2 lodged FIR against his son in law-the petitioner to the
effect that he and his family has murdered his daughter by giving
poison and accordingly FIR was lodged against the petitioner and
his family members U/s. 498-A, 302, 304-B, 34 of IPC and Section
4 of D.P. Act. However, charge sheet was submitted against the
petitioner u/s. 498-A and 306 of IPC and on 25.03.2022 the learned
court below has framed the charge against the petitioner for the said
offences which is under challenge.
2. It is submitted by the petitioner that the marriage between the
Petitioner - Husband and the Deceased -Wife was solemnized in the
year 2018 and a male child was born out of wedlock in the year
2018. The Petitioner is working as a Constable in 5th Battalion,
Laxmiposi, OSAP, Baripada, whereas the Deceased - Wife was
posted as Shikhya Sahayak in U.P.S. at Astia, Mayurbhanj.
2-A. On the early hours of 18.11.2020, the Petitioner was
informed by his Sister-in-Law i.e Chinmayi Behera (C.S.W - 2) that
his wife has consumed poison. The Petitioner along with his elder
brother and sister immediately took the Deceased to CHC,
Rasgovindpur and after preliminary treatment she was shifted to
DHH, Baripada. As her condition deteriorated, she was referred to
SCB Medical College, Cuttack, but on the way as she became non-
responsive and pulseless, she was taken to Vishakha Nursing
Home, Cuttack, where she could not be revived and was declared
dead.
Thereafter, Post Mortem was conducted at PRM, Medical
College, Baripada on 19.11.2020 and the autopsy reveals that the
cause of death as "death due to poisoning."
2-B. Thereafter, on 19.11.2020, the father of the Deceased lodged
a complaint before the Rasgovindpur P.S. and an F.I.R, was
registered as Rasgovindpur P.S. Case No. 226 of 2020 citing the
Petitioner and his family members as accused for alleged
commission of Offences punishable U/s- 498-A, 302, 304-B and 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. After investigation charge sheet was filed
under section 498A and 306 IPC.
2-C. It is argued by the petitioner that the material collected
during investigation does not disclose anywhere that the Petitioner
acted, with a view to either coerce his deceased wife or any person
related to her to meet any unwanted demand of any property or
valuable security. Only on the basis that the Petitioner quarreled
with his deceased wife due to some domestic issues or vague
allegations that the Petitioner used to harass his wife, the learned
Trial Court erroneously came to a finding that prima facie there
existed materials to frame charges U/s 306 & 498-A against the
Petitioner.
2-D. It is further contended by the petitioner that on a cumulative
assessment of the statements of charge sheeted witnesses recorded
U/s 161 Cr.P.C., more especially C.S.W. No. 3, namely Prafulla
Dalei (Neighbour/ Independent Witness); C.S.W. No. 2, namely
Chinmay Behera (sister-in-law of the Petitioner); C.S.W. No. 6,
namely Manoranjan Singha (Independent Witness); C.S.W. No. 24,
namely Chandra Mohan Guru (Independent Witness) and C.S.W.
No. 34, namely Arati Tarei (Neighbour / Independent Witness), it
could be well ascertained that there were no signs of animosity
between the Petitioner and his deceased-wife except for the usual
disagreement which is common in every matrimony. It is also stated
that mere inquiry by the Petitioner regarding the expenses incurred
by her and non-disclosure of money being transferred to unknown
persons would not qualify as an act of cruelty let alone abetment for
committing suicide. Such an act is at best can be termed as a
disagreement.
2-E. In the case at hand, admittedly two days prior to date of
occurrence, on 15.11.2020, the deceased-wife came to her
matrimonial home to get treated for abdominal pain as could be
ascertained from the statement of C.S.W. 21, i.e. Malati Pramanik
(mother of the deceased-wife). Post occurrence, it is borne out that
the Petitioner in spite of finding himself besieged by his in-laws and
their henchmen at the hospital, ran from pillar to post in a desperate
bid to save the life of his deceased-wife. The said act, according to
the learned counsel for the Petitioner falsifies the allegation of
prosecution of Petitioner's Mens Rea to drive his deceased-wife
into such a state so as to compel her to commit suicide.
2-F. It is submitted that 161 Cr.P.C. Statements of C.S.W. 2 i.e.
Smt. Chinmay Behera, C.S.W - 6 i.e. Manoranjan Singha, C.S.W -
7 i.e. Sanjib Kumar Mandal, C.S.W -8, i.e. Umakanta Bhoi, C.S.W
- 23 i.e. Nalini Kumar Dash, C.S.W - 24, i.e. Chandra Mohan Guru,
C.S.W - 26 i.e. Hemendra Mohan Sahu, C.S.W 32 i.e. Mandakini
Singh reveals that the Petitioner and his deceased-wife shared a
harmonious marital relationship without any serious disputes.
In this background, it is submitted by the Petitioner that in
the absence of the essential ingredients constituting the offence of
abetment to suicide & cruelty, coupled with the requisite Mens Rea
or Knowledge, especially when there is no prima facie case against
him to drive home the charge under section 498A and 306 IPC, the
order framing charges is outcome of perverse exercise of
jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court.
2G. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
following decisions:
I. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC
II. Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010)
1 SCC 707
III. Mariano Anto Bruno and Anr. v. Inspector of Police,
SCC OnLine SC 1387
IV. State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr., (1994)
1 SCC 73
V. S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr., (2010)
12 SCC 190
VI. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,
(1984) 4 SCC 116
VII. Ritu Makhija v. State of M.P & Ors., (2019) SCC
OnLine MP 4198
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT CITED BY THE
PETITIONER
I. In Gian Singh (supra), is more of a leading judgment regarding
exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of offence
or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an
offender and victim, than the point at issue in the present case. It is
distinguishable in the facts of the case and do not enure to the
benefit of the petitioner.
II. In Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu (supra), Apex Court after referring
to some of the previous decisions held that it has been the consistent
view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the
facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence
adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative to put an end to her life. It must be borne in mind that in
a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct
or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely
on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive
action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the
accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.
III. The Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr.
(supra) has held that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without their being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the Accused which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is
not sustainable.
It was further held that each suicide is a personal tragedy that
prematurely takes the life of an individual and has a continuing
ripple effect, dramatically affecting the lives of families, friends and
communities. However, the Court of law while adjudicating is not
to be guided by emotions of sentiments but the dictum is required to
be based on analysis of facts and evidence on record.
In the light of the ruling of the Apex Court relied on by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner in Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr.
Vs. The Inspector of Police, to convict the Accused under Section
306 of IPC there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation
of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to
the time of occurrence on the part of the Accused which led or
compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms
of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
IV. In Orilal Jaiswal (supra), the Apex Court underlined that
courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had
been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the
person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat
that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite
common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors
were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to
resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be
held guilty.
V. In case of S.S. Chheena (supra), the Apex Court held that
the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit
an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading
the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option.
VI. The celebrated case of Sharad Birdhichand (supra) needs no
emphasis wherein the Apex Court laid down five golden
principles/panchsheel for proving a case based on circumstantial
evidence.
Statement of the Prosecution and Informant
3. While supporting the framing of charge, it is contended by
the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, Informant as well
as the learned counsel for the State that from the statements
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that there was
demand of dowry from the side of the Petitioner and his family
members for which there was always physical and mental torture on
the deceased and also there is quarrel between the husband and the
deceased relating to salary of the deceased who was working as a
teacher. There are consistent statements of all the witnesses is that
there was disturbance relating to salary of the deceased and there
was rancor on the said score.
3-A. On 18.11.2020 one witness namely Prafulla Dalei (C.W.3)
had been to the house of the petitioner for dinner and witnessed the
quarrel between the husband and the wife so also one Arati Tarei
(C.W.34) who is the neighbour of the Petitioner heard quarrel
between them on that evening and the next morning the deceased
was found in serious condition because of consumption of poison.
It is the version of all most all the witnesses that the deceased was
driven to consume poison due to mental torture by the present
Petitioner. The medical evidence sufficiently supports that the
accused is the author of crime. Stand taken by the defence is
untenable.
3-B. To fortify their submission, learned counsel for the Informant
submitted the written note of submission and the learned counsel
for the State relied on the following judgments.
(i) Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & anr.,
(1979) 3 SCC 4.
(ii) Priyanka Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 685.
The Apex Court in Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra), has held
thus;
"xxx xxx xxx
10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned
above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of flaming
the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose
of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing
a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally
depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay
down a rule of universal application. By and large however if
two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that
the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some
suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will
be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of
the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior
and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and
the documents produced before the Court, any basic
infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however
does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry
into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence
as if he was conducting a trial.
xxx xxx xxx"
The Apex Court in Priyanka Jaiswal (supra) held that the Court
while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. and cannot conduct a mini-trial or enter into an appreciation
of an evidence of a particular case. It was observed:-
"xxx xxx xxx
13. We say so for reasons more than one. This Court in
catena of Judgments has consistently held that at the time of
examining the prayer for quashing of the criminal
proceedings, the court exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction
can neither undertake to conduct a mini-trial nor enter into
appreciation of evidence of a particular case. The correctness
or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot
be examined on the touchstone of the probable defence that
the accused may raise to stave off the prosecution and any
such misadventure by the Courts resulting in proceedings
being quashed would be set aside. This Court in the case of
Akhil Sharda held to the following effect:
"28. Having gone through the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the
High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in the
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., it appears that
the High Court has virtually conducted a mini-trial, which as
such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the
application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. As observed and held
by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini-trial can be
conducted by the High Court in the exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding
the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the High Court
cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case
being considered.
xxx xxx xxx "
3-C. It is further asserted that the conduct of the accused was also
doubtful as because the Petitioner is working as a Constable in
Laxmiposi Battalion OSAP, has absconded from the medical
leaving the dead body and was arrested after two days.
3-D. Charge sheet was filed under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC
though there are materials on record for prima facie commission of
offence under Section 302 & 304-B IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act.
3-E. From the statements of the witnesses, it appears that there
are enough materials against the Petitioner that the poison which
was consumed by the deceased was forcefully administered by the
Petitioner and his family members in that fateful night and to find
out as to how the deceased could get access to the poison, the trial
is imperative.
It is thus submitted by the Opposite Party No.2 that deceased
has died in her matrimonial house in an abnormal circumstance
within 07 years of marriage. As such the petitioner ought to be put
to trial for commission of offences under Section 498A and 306
IPC.
4. Law is well settled that one cannot be convicted or
prosecuted only on the ground of having absconded unless there are
other prima facie materials of involvement in the commission of
crime especially in the background that the petitioner took the
deceased to the hospital in Cuttack where she was declared dead.
The petitioner has stated that after dropping dead body of deceased
at Baripada DHH he fled away from Baripada DHH on the
apprehension of being manhandled by the deceased's family.
5. Be that as it may, scope of interference at the stage of
framing of charge is well settled. Before adverting to the rival
submissions, this court may briefly notice the scope and ambit of
powers of the Trial Judge under Section 227 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Chapter XVIII of the Code lays down the
procedure for trial before the Court of Sessions, pursuant to an
order of commitment under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Code).
Section 227 of the Code contemplates the circumstances
whereunder there could be a discharge of an accused at a stage
anterior in point of time to framing of charge under Section 228.
Thereof Section 227 of the Code provides that upon
consideration of the materials on record submitted with the police
report and after hearing the accused and the prosecution, the Court
is bound to decide whether there is "sufficient ground" to proceed
against the accused and as a consequence thereof either to discharge
the accused or proceed to frame charge against him. It is trite that
the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused" appearing in the Section postulate exercise of judicial
mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to
determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the
prosecution.
6. Since admittedly, no discharge petition was ever filed by the
Petitioner before the learned Trial Court, this leads to the question
to be considered by this Court i.e. the merits of the impugned order
dated 25.03.2022 at Annexure-1 whereby charges have been framed
against the Petitioner.
7. There is no cavil that the charge can be quashed, if on the
basis of materials, which the prosecution seeks to rely upon are
accepted at its face value, does not implicate the accused for
committing the particular offence. In this background the materials
needs to be scrutinized.
Analysis of materials on record
C.S.W-1-Informant/Father of the deceased as well as
statement of C.S.W.-5 (Brother of the deceased) reflects omnibus
allegation against the Petitioner and his family and no particulars
such as amount of dowry given, amount of dowry demanded or
instances when dowry was demanded are mentioned so as to test
the veracity of the same. On the contrary, it seems the entire
allegation has been made on suspicion and thus cannot be made the
basis for prima facie case unless corroborated.
C.S.W-2-is the sister-in-law of the deceased and also
happens to be present in the house on the date of occurrence and the
deceased slept with her on the previous night. On the next morning
she saw the deceased in an inebriated position. Upon asking
deceased vomited and said that she has consumed poison.
Thereafter the witness intimated her husband and husband of the
deceased i.e. present petitioner took her to hospital. Her statement
does not reveal any allegation or cruelly to support charges in
question.
C.S.W.-3-who is the neighbour of the petitioner and also
visited the Petitioner's for dinner on the previous night of
occurrence and witnesses to the quarrel between the deceased and
the petitioner. Though he is neighbour but his statement does not
reflect any allegation regarding cruelty or demand of dowry meted
out to the deceased. On the contrary his statement shows that
deceased and the petitioner fought since the deceased gave
Rs.5,000.00 to his father and is silent about the balance amount.
Thus there is no ingredient to support charged offences.
Statements of C.S.W.-4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 22, 32 reveal that there
used to be quarrel with regard to salary of the petitioner but does
not reveal any allegation or cruelty to support charges in question.
Statement of C.S.W.-21 (mother of the deceased) one of the
most material witnesses shows that deceased and the petitioner
were pulling on well. But there used to be quarrel with regard to
salary which was amicably settled with the intervention of the
family. She further states that there was a quarrel since, on
04.11.2020, as the deceased withdrew some money from bank
account and spent it. Her statement reflects omnibus allegation
against the petitioner and his family and no particulars such as
amount of dowry given, amount of dowry demanded or instances
when dowry was demanded are mentioned so as to rest veracity on
the same. On the contrary it seems the entire allegation has been
made on suspicion and thus cannot be made the basis for even
prima facie case unless corroborated.
Statement of C.S.W.-23, 24, 26 does not support the
ingredient of offences charged, as such is of no help to the
prosecution.
C.S.W.-34 is the neighbour of the petitioner and she has
stated that there was a quarrel on 18.11.2020 between the deceased
and the petitioner as the deceased had given away some money to
outsider/s without the knowledge of the petitioner and refused to
give account for the same. Being annoyed the petitioner said that he
will bring it to the notice of the family of the deceased. On next day
the deceased found to have consumed poison. Her statement does
not throw any light regarding the circumstances of dowry demand
or torture. PM Report also does not reflect any external or internal
injury on the body of the deceased.
All the allegations brought forward by the informant are
omnibus allegations and in the considered view of this Court, are a
result of sentimental outburst following the untimely / unnatural
demise of the informant's daughter.
8. Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those who abet the act of
suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section,
the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the
act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of
the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC. These
conditions include that the accused instigated or encouraged the
individual to commit suicide in the case at hand, conspiring with
others to ensure that the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct
(or neglecting to act) that directly led to the person taking his/her
own life.
For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-
established legal principle that the presence of mens rea the
intention to abet the act is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is
not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The
prosecution must demonstratively establish an active or direct
action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life.
The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it
must be evident and explicitly discernible.
In this context reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of S.S. Chheena (supra) wherein the Apex Court
observed thus.
"xxx xxx xxx
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The
intension of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided
by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea
to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct
act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasized)
9. In the instant case, thorough analysis of materials on record
as above does not show any overt act on the part of the petitioner to
satisfy the ingredients of Section 306 IPC and the proximate
instance that the petitioner asked for the money encashed and spent
by the deceased cannot be said to be sufficient to maintain charges
under section 306 IPC.
In this regard it is apt to gainfully refer to the recent decision
of Apex Court in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda &
Ors. vs State of Gujarat, (2025) 2 SCC 116. Relevant paragraphs
are quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"xxx xxx xxx
29. The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated
through actions or behaviors of the accused that directly
contributed to the victim's decision to take their own life.
Harassment, in itself, does not suffice unless it is
accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement or facilitation.
Furthermore, these actions must be proximate to the time of
the suicide, showcasing a clear connection between the
accused's behavior and the tragic outcome. It is only through
the establishment of this direct link that a conviction under
Section 306 IPC can be justified. The prosecution bears the
burden of proving this active involvement to hold the accused
accountable for the alleged abetment of suicide. The same
position has been laid down by this court in several
judgments, such as:
i. M. Mohan v. State;
ii. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal;
iii. Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka.
30. Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there
must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement
to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the
context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human
behavior and reactions, requiring the Court to rely on cogent
and convincing proof of the accused's role in instigating the
act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the
accused's actions were so compelling that the victim
perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such
actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The
Court examines whether the accused's conduct, including
provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim's self-esteem,
created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were
intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet
the threshold for abetment or investigation. Each case
demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the
accused's intent and its impact on the victim.
xxx xxx xxx"
10. Perusal of the FIR, the analysis of the finding of the
Investigating Officer in the charge sheet vis-à-vis the statements on
record prima facie indicate that the deceased was never subjected to
physical as well as mental cruelty by her husband and the in-laws
on account of dowry.
A thorough scrutiny of the materials on record ex-facie do
not establish a prima facie case under section 498A and Section 306
of the IPC and none of the ingredients of Section 498A and 306 of
IPC is satisfied to show "sufficient ground" to sustain the charge. In
Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra), the Apex Court observed that
while considering the question of framing a charge, the Court has
the undoubted power to sift and weigh the materials for the limited
purpose for finding out whether or not a prima facie case against
the accused has been made out. In exercising the power the Court
cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution.
In the scenario when there's no material to show sufficient
ground to sustain the charge as discussed above, this court is of the
considered view that, the trial vis-à-vis charges would be a radar
less voyage and continuing the criminal proceedings would be an
exercise in futility, resulting in wastage of precious judicial time.
11. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record, on the
touchstone of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda (Supra), this Court is
persuaded to hold that the Petitioner cannot be charged under
Sections 498A & 306 IPC.
12. Accordingly the CRLREV is allowed and the charge framed
under Sections 498A and 306 IPC at Annexure-1 is quashed and the
Petitioner is discharged.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 11th March, 2025/Ayesha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
