The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of exercising powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash entire criminal proceedings in the absence of extraordinary situations or abuse of process of law, especially when the learned courts below have found prima facie materials against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Through Video conferencing

Heard Mr. D.C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Awadhesh Pandey, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

3. Heard Mrs. Sweta Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

4. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of G.R. No. 832/2015 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 290/2015 registered under Sections 498-A, 506, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of learned C.J.M. Saraikella including order taking cognizance of the offences under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. dated 25.01.2016 as well as order framing of charge dated 17.04.2018 under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection to the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that no relief, as prayed for, can be granted to the petitioner, as neither the order refusing to discharge dated 17.03.2018 passed by the learned trial court nor the order revisional order dated 21.01.2019 passed in Cr. Revision No. 18 of 2018 by the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Seraikella, upholding the order refusing to discharge is under challenge in the present proceedings. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has challenged the entire criminal proceeding; order taking cognizance dated 25.01.2016 and order framing charge dated 17.04.2018 but neither the order refusing to discharge nor the order by which the same was upheld in Cr. Revision No. 18 of 2018 are under challenge.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand while responding to the preliminary objection raised by the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that this court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceeding and the learned court below had not taken into consideration the unimpeachable document which was referred to by the petitioner and accordingly he submits that even if the order refusing to discharge dated 17.03.2018 and the revisional order upholding the same has not been challenged in this case, still the relief of quashing the entire criminal proceedings as prayed for by the petitioner before this court can be granted. He refers to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan reported (2016) 16 SCC 30.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that neither the order dated 17.03.2018 refusing to discharge the petitioner nor the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, at Seraikella in Cr. Revision No. 18 of 2018 upholding the aforesaid order dated 17.03.2018 are under challenge before this court.

8. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the order dated 17.03.2018 and order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned courts below are not under challenge, power can still be exercised under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceedings.

9. This court finds that the present case has been filed on 25.04.2019 challenging the entire criminal proceedings including order taking cognizance dated 25.01.2016 and order framing charge dated 17.04.2018 without challenging the order dated 17.03.2018 refusing to discharge the petitioner by rejecting the plea of alibi raised by the petitioner at the stage of discharge and also without challenging the order dated 21.01.2019 in Cr. Revision No. 18 of 2018 upholding the order refusing to discharge the petitioner holding that the plea of alibi raised by the petitioner is a matter of trial and also holding that there are prima-facie evidence against the petitioner in the case diary on the basis of which charge can be framed.

10.