Orissa High Court
Samaptika Behera & Others vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opposite ... on 31 October, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 1748 of 2016
Samaptika Behera & others .... Petitioners
Mr. P.K Jena, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opposite Parties
Ms. S. Mohanty,
Addl. P.P.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 31.10.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to
quash the order dated 02.04.2016 passed by the learned
S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, in 1.C.C. Case No.1985 of 2015.
2. The background facts of the case are that Petitioner No.1
(since deceased) married Durgamadhab Patro, the Opposite Party
No.2 herein (the complainant in I.C.C. Case No.1985 of 2015), in
the year 2009. Subsequently, discord arose in their matrimonial
life, as Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 were unable to
maintain a harmonious relationship. Several cases were instituted
by Petitioner No.1 against Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter,
Opposite Party No.2 lodged a complaint before the police
alleging harassment and assault by the Petitioners. As the police
did not register an FIR, Opposite Party No.2 approached the
learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, and filed a complaint, which was
registered as I.C.C. Case No.1985 of 2015. In the said complaint,
Opposite Party No.2, inter alia, alleged that after the couple i.e.
Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 were blessed with a
male child, their relationship further deteriorated. Opposite Party
No.2 believed that shortcomings on the part of Petitioner No.1 in
taking care of the child had led to such discord. He further stated
that he later came to know that Petitioner No.1 was allegedly
maintaining an illicit relationship with Petitioner No.3 and that
she was not behaving properly with him, acting instead with the
intention of taking revenge in various forms. As a consequence of
this alleged conduct, Petitioner No.1 purportedly demanded
money from Opposite Party No.2 and threatened that if her
demands were not met, she would initiate criminal proceedings
against him. It is further alleged that upon Opposite Party No.2
not complying with such demands, Petitioner No.1 lodged an FIR
against him at the Mahila Police Station, pursuant to which he
was arrested, remained in custody for about twelve to thirteen
days, and was released thereafter. Opposite Party No.2 further
alleged that Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 once approached him
proposing a compromise with Petitioner No.1. They allegedly
asked him to visit the house of Petitioner No.1 in the evening.
When Opposite Party No.2 visited the said house as requested, all
the Petitioners allegedly misbehaved with him, demanded a sum
of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) towards settlement,
and threatened to withdraw the civil case pending before the
learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.
At the behest of Opposite Party No.2, the complaint, in
essence, contains allegations of assault, threat, and intimidation
against the Petitioners, primarily directed towards Petitioner
Nos.1, 2, 3, and 6. The learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, upon
complying with the statutory requirements for taking cognizance
of a complaint including recording the initial statement of the
complainant and conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the
Cr.P.C. took cognizance of the offences under Sections
294/313/506/354/34 of the I.P.C vide order dated 02.04.2016.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of cognizance
passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, the Petitioners
have approached this Court, inter alia, on the grounds that the
complaint is false, vexatious, and unsupported by any material. It
is further contended that the complaint is nothing but a
counterblast to the FIR lodged by the Petitioners regarding the
ill-treatment and cruelty allegedly meted out to Petitioner No.1
by Opposite Party No.2. According to the Petitioners, the
impugned order taking cognizance under Sections
294/313/506/354/34 I.P.C. is illegal, unsustainable in law, does
not disclose any prima facie case against them, and therefore
deserves to be quashed.
4. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioners, in course of
the hearing, submitted that the Petitioner No.1 namely Ms.
Samaptika Behera, Petitioner No.2-Mr. Krushna Prasad Panda
and Petitioner No.6-Ms. Swagatika Behera have expired during
the pendency of the present application. He further submitted
that even if the complaint, taken at its face value, without any
interference in the allegations, does not make out any case
against any of the Petitioners except the Petitioner No.1, as the
allegations in respect to other Petitioners are just to rope them,
being the kith and kin of the Petitioner No.1.
5. Ms. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the Petitioners and justified the impugned order
passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, as being in
accordance with law and requires no interference.
6. Upon perusal of the complaint and consideration of the
grounds urged by the Petitioners while assailing the impugned
order of cognizance passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhubaneswar, it is evident that the Petitioners have placed
considerable material to show that Petitioner No.1 had earlier
initiated multiple proceedings against Opposite Party No.2. These
include, inter alia, a complaint alleging cruelty and ill-treatment,
as well as Civil Proceeding No.38 of 2015 instituted under
Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
1956, wherein Petitioner No.1 sought maintenance with effect
from 17.10.2014, the date from which the parties admittedly
began residing separately.
7. A close scrutiny of the averments made in the complaint
filed by Opposite Party No.2, on the basis of which cognizance
has been taken, reveals that the said complaint was lodged only
after Petitioner No.1 initiated several proceedings against him.
This sequence of events, coupled with the nature of the
allegations, prima facie suggests that the complaint may have
been motivated as a retaliatory measure.
8. From a plain reading of the complaint as well as the
impugned order, it further emerges that the allegations are
predominantly directed against Petitioner No.1, and whatever is
alleged against the remaining Petitioners appears to stem solely
from their relationship with Petitioner No.1. The complaint does
not disclose any specific, independent, or overt act attributable to
the other Petitioners which would prima facie constitute the
offences alleged. The entirety of the narrative centres around the
strained matrimonial relationship between Petitioner No.1 and
Opposite Party No.2, and the alleged conduct arising out of such
discord.
Even the allegation of an illicit relationship, projected as
one of the causes of desertion, does not find support from any
material on record and appears to be a mere conjecture without
tangible foundation. The matrimonial dispute between the
spouses forms the core of the complaint, and the attempt to
implicate other family members of Petitioner No.1 appears to be
an overextension without substantive basis.
9. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that Petitioner
Nos.1, 2, and 6 have since passed away. In such circumstances,
the continuation of criminal proceedings against the remaining
Petitioners, in the absence of any independent allegation or
material showing their involvement, would serve no useful
purpose and would instead amount to permitting the abuse of the
process of law. When the root cause of the complaint itself is the
matrimonial discord between Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party
No.2, the death of Petitioner No.1 renders the substratum of the
dispute infructuous to a large extent. Consequently, no fruitful
result can be expected from allowing the proceedings to continue.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the
considered view that the very allegations giving rise to the
complaint emanate solely from the matrimonial discord between
Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. As far as the remaining
Petitioners are concerned, the complaint does not attribute any
specific or independent overt act to them, and the attempt to
involve them appears to stem merely from their relationship with
Petitioner No.1, without any substantiating material
demonstrating their individual participation in the alleged
offences. Even if the averments in the complaint are taken at their
face value, they do not prima facie disclose the ingredients of the
offences alleged under Sections 294, 313, 354, 506, and 34 of the
I.P.C. Allowing the proceedings to continue against such
Petitioners would thus fall within the categories enunciated in
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335, where prosecution may be quashed to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court.
11. With the death of Petitioner No.1, the substratum of the
complaint itself stands extinguished, rendering the continuation
of the criminal proceeding wholly meaningless. Therefore, the
impugned order taking cognizance cannot be sustained in law and
is hereby set aside. Consequently, the order dated 02.04.2016
passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar is quashed.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Sarbani
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Oct-2025 17:54:47
