[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Rachama Palata @ Rutama Palta & vs State Of Odisha & Anr. ........ Opposite ... on 9 April, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                   CRLMC No. 673 of 2026

                             Rachama Palata @ Rutama Palta &
                             Others                                      ........   Petitioner(s)
                                                                      Mr. Mitu Kumar Biswal, Adv.

                                                        -Versus-
                             State of Odisha & Anr.                 ........ Opposite Party(s)
                                                                           Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
                                     CORAM:
                                     DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                                    ORDER

09.04.2026 Order No.

02.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Though service is completed, none appears on behalf of the

Opposite Party No.2 at the time of call.

3. Heard.

4. The Petitioners have approached this Court by invoking its

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (now corresponding to Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), seeking abashment of

the entire criminal proceeding arising out of R. Udayagiri P.S.

Case No.83 of 2024, which has culminated in S.T. Case No.124 of

2024 and is presently pending before the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that the continuation of

the impugned criminal proceeding would amount to a manifest

abuse of the process of Court and that the allegations contained in

the F.I.R., even if taken at their face value and accepted in their

entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of any

cognizable offence so as to warrant their prosecution. The

Petitioners contend that the initiation as well as continuation of

the prosecution is legally unsustainable and, therefore, liable to

be interdicted at the threshold in exercise of the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court.

6. The scope and ambit of the inherent power under Section 482

Cr.P.C. is no longer res integra. Though the power is of wide

amplitude, it is circumscribed by self-imposed judicial restraints.

The inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, with

circumspection, and only in those exceptional cases where the

Court is satisfied that failure to intervene would result in

palpable injustice or abuse of the process of law. It is equally well

settled that such power cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate

prosecution or to short-circuit a trial at its nascent stage.

7. The principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction have

been authoritatively expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1 , wherein illustrative categories

were delineated indicating the circumstances in which criminal

proceedings may justifiably be quashed. Unless the case of the

Petitioners demonstrably falls within the parameters so

enunciated, interference at this stage would be wholly

unwarranted.

8. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.05.2024 at about 3.00

P.M., the informant appeared before R. Udayagiri Police Station

and lodged a written report alleging inter alia that she had

solemnized her marriage on 23.11.2022 with one Subodh Kumar

Pradhan of her native village in accordance with Christian rites

and customs. At the time of marriage, it is alleged that her father

had given her approximately two tolas of gold ornaments, while

her husband had presented her with one gold chain weighing

about one tola and a gold ring. After the marriage, the informant

was taken by her husband to a rented house situated at 3rd Lane,

Bank Colony, Berhampur, under Baidyanathpur Police Station,

behind M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, where they

began to reside. It is alleged that within eight days of the

marriage, her husband started visiting Bhubaneswar frequently

on the pretext of work, staying there during the night and

returning to the rented house during the day. The informant

Signature 1 Not Verified 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Apr-2026 15:01:31

claims that upon developing suspicion regarding his conduct and

making inquiries with the family members, she was met with

indifferent and hostile behaviour. According to her, she was

denied proper food and basic necessities and was subjected to

demands for additional dowry, including a sum of ₹1,00,000/-

along with other articles. The informant further alleges that after

about two months of marriage, she was subjected to both mental

and physical cruelty in connection with the alleged dowry

demand. It is also stated that her gold ornaments were forcibly

taken and pledged with Muthoot Finance at Berhampur. Upon

being unable to endure the alleged harassment, she informed her

father of the situation, and on 13.02.2023, her father came to

Berhampur and took her back to her parental home.

Subsequently, the informant registered her pregnancy at the local

Anganwadi Centre and received the requisite T.T. injection. She

claims to have informed her husband of her pregnancy.

Thereafter, she was allegedly misled with false information that

her husband had sustained injuries in a vehicular accident.

Acting upon such information, she immediately proceeded to the

Pushpanjali residence at 3rd Lane, Bank Colony, where she

discovered that the information was untrue. It is further alleged

that the family members then exerted pressure upon her to

terminate the pregnancy, which she refused. Consequent upon

these events, she lodged the F.I.R. in question. Upon completion

of investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted charge-sheet

on 12.07.2023 against the accused persons, whereafter the case

was committed and is now pending as S.T. Case No.124 of 2024

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi,

Gajapati.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that although the

names of the present Petitioners do not find place in the F.I.R., the

Investigating Agency has nevertheless submitted charge-sheet

dated 03.07.2024 arraying them as accused persons along with

other in-law family members of the complainant. It is contended

that such implication is wholly unwarranted and unsupported by

any substantive material collected during investigation.

10.It is further argued that neither the F.I.R. nor the statements of

witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. attribute any

specific overt act of assault, cruelty, or dowry demand to the

present Petitioners. According to the learned counsel, there is not

even a whisper of any direct allegation against them, save and

except certain vague and omnibus assertions regarding their

occasional visits to the matrimonial house, they being neighbours.

Such bald and generalized allegations, it is urged, do not satisfy

the legal requirement of specific accusation so as to constitute the

alleged offences.

11.Learned counsel further submits that the discord in the

matrimonial relationship primarily arose on account of personal

differences between the husband and wife, allegedly stemming

from an extra-marital issue, and in the wake of such strained

relations, the complainant has roped in all family members

indiscriminately, including the present Petitioners, with an

oblique motive. It is thus contended that the Petitioners are in no

manner connected with the alleged offences and that their

prosecution would amount to sheer harassment and abuse of the

process of Court.

12.He further relies on the judgment in case of Dara Lakshmi

Narayan and others vs. State of Telengana and another2 . The

relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow: -

"We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal sources and grudges against appellant 1 and his family members i.e. appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajanlal. Therefore, the High Court in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under section 482 Cr.P.C. and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."

13.Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioners and upon

careful perusal of the averments made in the present petition as

well as the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the

Signature 2 Not Verified (2025) 3 SCC 735 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Apr-2026 15:01:31

allegations against the present Petitioners are omnibus in nature

and bereft of any specific attribution of overt acts constituting the

alleged offences. The F.I.R. and the statements recorded during

investigation do not disclose any prima facie material indicating

their active involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry

demand.

14.In the absence of specific and credible allegations, permitting the

criminal prosecution to proceed against the Petitioners would

amount to subjecting them to unwarranted harassment and

would constitute an abuse of the process of Court. The inherent

jurisdiction of this Court is therefore rightly invocable to secure

the ends of justice.