Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
Lochani Nayak and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
State of Odisha and Ors. – Opp. Parties
CRLMC No.138 of 2026
Decided on 13.3.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Satyabrata Dash, Advocate, R.K. Sarangi, Advocate, V.K. Sharma, Advocate,
For the Opp. Parties:Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC, Mr. Gajendranath Raut, Advocate.
For the OPP. PartiesNo2:Mr. Suryakanta Palat, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Domestic violence – While exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash a proceeding arising out of application under Section 12 of D.V. Act, High Court should be very slow and circumspect, and interference can be made only when case clearly discloses gross illegality or gross abuse of process.
Headnote:
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Domestic violence – Criminal proceeding – Proceeding under Section 12 of D.V. Act is predominantly civil and remedial in character, though it is entertained by a criminal court – Jurisdiction under Section 528 is an exceptional jurisdiction – It is not a forum for reappreciation of evidence or for recording disputed findings of fact – Interference is warranted only where proceeding is palpably without jurisdiction, does not disclose foundational legal ingredients even if pleadings are accepted at face value, or is otherwise clear case of gross abuse of process – Application under Section 12 cannot be treated as initiation of prosecution so as to import a rigid one year bar – Petitioners’ limitation objection does not furnish a ground for quashing proceeding at threshold – Whether allegations are ultimately proved, and to what extent any relief lies against each respondent, are matters squarely within jurisdiction of Magistrate to decide on merits – Petitioners have efficacious remedies before Magistrate – Quashing declined. (Paras 8, 9, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22)
Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.—The present CRLMC has been filed by three petitioners, namely the mother-in-law aged about 78 years, the sister-in-law, and the brother-in- law of Opposite Party No. 2, seeking quashing of the entire proceeding in D.V. Case No. 14 of 2025 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. (P), Kujang, instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
I. Factual Matrix of the Case:
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
(i) Opposite Party No. 2 is the legally married wife of Hemanta Nayak. Her case is that after marriage she lived in the matrimonial household along with her husband and his family members, including the present petitioners, and during the subsistence of that domestic relationship she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, neglect, deprivation of food, threats to her life, and other acts alleged to constitute domestic violence.
(ii) Prior to the institution of the D.V. proceeding, Opposite Party No. 2 had lodged Kujang P.S. Case No. 332 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 868 of 2023 against her husband and the present petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A/406/506/34 IPC. Charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken, charges were framed, and the case proceeded to full trial.
(iii) By judgment dated 05.04.2025, the learned J.M.F.C. (P), Kujang acquitted the accused persons in the said G.R. case, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges under Sections 498- A/406/506/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court noted omissions in the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, contradictions among prosecution witnesses, absence of seizure of alleged dowry articles, lack of medical evidence, and vagueness in relation to the allegation of criminal intimidation.
(iv) Thereafter, on 13.08.2025, Opposite Party No. 2 instituted D.V. Case No. 14 of 2025 seeking reliefs under Sections 17, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the PWDV Act. The present petitioners have challenged the continuance of that proceeding on the ground that it amounts to abuse of process, whereas the State and Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 contend that the D.V. proceeding is a distinct statutory remedy and is maintainable notwithstanding the earlier acquittal in the criminal case.
II. Petitioners’ Submissions:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.
(i) The petitioners contend that the D.V. proceeding is a clear abuse of the process of law insofar as the present in-laws have been roped in again on the basis of the very same factual allegations which had earlier been made the subject matter of Kujang P.S. Case No. 332 of 2023 and which culminated in their acquittal after a full-fledged criminal trial.
(ii) It is their case that Opposite Party No. 2 has been residing in her parental house since lodging of the FIR and that no fresh cause of action has been disclosed against the present petitioners after the earlier criminal proceeding. According to them, the allegations in the domestic violence application are identical, in other words, substantially the same, as those contained in the FIR and the deposition in the prior criminal case.
(iii) The petitioners submit that the judgment of acquittal dated 05.04.2025 has attained finality and contains findings that the allegations of dowry demand, physical torture, criminal intimidation, and misappropriation were not proved. They therefore argue that permitting another proceeding on the same allegations would amount to harassment through repeated litigation and would defeat the finality attached to the earlier adjudication.
(iv) The petitioners further contend that there are no specific allegations against them individually and the allegations are omnibus, vague, and generalized. Stress is laid on the fact that petitioner No. 1 is an elderly widowed mother-in-law aged 78 years, petitioner No. 2 is the sister-in-law, and petitioner No. 3 is the hus
