SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ORISSA HIGH COURT
Savitri Ratho, J.
Arman Khan and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
State of Odisha – Opp. Party
Crl.M.C.No.2549 of 2017
Decided on 9.2.2026

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: None
For the Respondent: Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel

IMPORTANT POINT
Police notice for appearance – I.O. has to be careful and specific while issuing notice.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 41-A [Section 35 of BNSS] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 294 / 323 / 506 / 498-A/ 34 read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Police notice for appearance – I.O. has to be careful and specific while issuing notice, as non-compliance of conditions of notice would have made the person liable for arrest under Section 41(4) of Cr.P.C and now under Section 35(6) of BNSS – As petitioners were accused in the case, they had to be available for the purpose of investigation – Condition not to go outside jurisdiction of Police Station may have been necessary as it some of them work outside District and State – There was no bar for them to leave the jurisdiction after informing I.O. – From wording of impugned notice, it appeared that petitioners had already been held guilty of offences – Trial of case had not been held – I.O. should have been more careful while preparing notice. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)

Result: Crl.M.C. disposed of with observations.

JUDGMENT

This Crl.MC has been filed with the following prayer:—

“It is therefore prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit this Crl. M.C. issue notice to the Opp. Party and after hearing the statement/observation made in the paragraph-2 of the impugned notice at Annexure-3 series showing the petitioners as convicts in the alleged offences may kindly be quashed and the condition imposed at serial Nos.2 & 5 of the said impugned notice may kindly be modified to such extent to which this Hon’ble Court to deem just and proper.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

Fact of the Case in Brief

2. Petitioner No.1 is the husband and other petitioners are the in-laws of the informant-Anjum Bibi. She had filed 1CC Case No. 114 of 2017 in the Court of the JMFC Chandikhole against the petitioners. Pursuant to direction of the learned JMFC, under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P.C, Balichandrapur P.S. Case No. 100 of 2017 under Section – 294/323/506/498-A/ 34 Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) read with Section – 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short “DP Act”), was registered against the petitioners which corresponds to G.R. case No 628 of 2017 in the file of the learned JMFC Chandikhole.

3. During investigation, the petitioners received notices under Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C, dated 28.05.2017, in Odiya language where it was stated that there was enough material to indicate that they were guilty of committing offences under Section 294/323/506/498-A/ 34 IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act. It was also stated at condition (II) that accused-petitioners will appear every 15 days in the police station and before the I.O as and when required by him and will co-operate till completion of investigation and under condition No.V, it was stated that the accused-petitioners should not leave the territorial jurisdiction without prior intimation of the I.O. and shall not in any manner hamper/interfere with the investigation.

Submissions

4. As none appeared for the petitioners, I perused the averments in the CRLMC and the order sheet in ABLPL No. 11273 of 2017 filed by Petitioner No.1 which had been tagged to the CRLMC.

5. In the CRLMC petition it is stated that the petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail in ABLPL No. 9626 of 2017 and ABLPL No.11273 of 2017. It is also stated that Petitioner Nos.1, 7, 8 and 9 are working in hotels outside the district and state / doing business. Petitioner No.1 was married and residing in his matrimonial home. Petitioner No 2 and 3 were old and infirm persons. Though all of them are willing to co-operate with the investigation, the conditions were onerous and liable for interference. The notice was also illegal as it was stated therein that the petitioners were guilty of committing the offences.

6. Perusal of the order sheet in ABLPL No. 11273 of 2017 reveals that by order dated 25.07.2017 passed ABLPL No. 11273 of 2017, it had been directed that the petitioner would be released on interim bail in the event of his arrest and to appear before the I.O. for the purpose of investigation as and when required. On 22.06.2021, ABLPL No. 11273 of 2017 was finally disposed of directing the petitioner to be released on bail on his surrender before the learned JMFC within three weeks and filing an application for bail. Therefore the averment that the petitioners were released on anticipatory bail by this Court is not correct.

7. Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party produced the instruction dated 21.03.2018 of the IIC, Balichandrapur Police Station and submitted that notices are in consonance under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C and do not require interference. It is stated in the instructions that after completion of investigation, charge sheet dated 22.12.2017 has been submitted against the nine petitioners (who had been named in the FIR).

Statutory Provisions

8. Section 41 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top