Back
2013 Supreme(Ori) 388
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
M.M. DAS, J.
CRLMC No.1965 of 2009
(Date of Judgment : 11.11.2013)
In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Agarwal
and five others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Orissa and another ... Opp.Parties
For Petitioners:M/s. P. K. Mohapatra, A. K. Patnaik, S. Mohanty, A. Singh and G. Choubey
For Opp.Parties:M/s. S. D. Das, H. S. Satpathy, A. N. Sahu, M. Panda, D. Mohanty and M. M. Swain (For O.P.2)
Addl. Government Advocate
Headnote:1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Secs. 482, 202 - Complaint case under Secs. 498-A, 302, 304-B, 201/34, IPC read with Sec. 4 of the D.P.Act - Filing another FIR in respect of the same incident having a different version of events is permissible - In the present case, the investigation made by Jhansi Police is totally different i.e. on a occurrence of road accident, whereas the complaint petition has been filed for separate offences against a different set of accused persons none of whom were accused in the case investigated by Jhansi Police - Exercise of power under Sec. 482 stated - Learned Magistrate after due enquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. considering all materials brought before him has found a prima facie case to have been made out against the petitioners - No ground made out to quash the complaint case or the order of taking cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate.
(Paras - 8 to 10)
2. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Any person aggrieved is free to lodge a complaint invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for initiation of a criminal proceeding when no action was taken by the police nor the Magistrate is bound by any investigation conducted by the Police. (Para - 5)
3. FIR - Law does not prohibit registration and investigation of two FIRs in respect of the same incident in case the versions are different.
4. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Sec. 482 - Exercise of power stated.
Such power to quash the criminal proceeding should be exercised where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magsitrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code or where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offnece and make out a case against the accsued or where the allgations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengence on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. (Para- 9)
JUDGMENT
M.M. DAS, J. : The petitioners have filed this CRLMC under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the complaint proceeding bearing I.C.C. No.30 of 2009 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Khariar. The learned Magistrate by order dated 27.5.2009 finding that a prima facie case is made out under Section 498-A/302/304-B/201/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the accused persons, namely, Pramod Kumar Agrawal, Smt. Bimlesh Devi, Jyoti Agrawal, Mahesh Agrawal and Satish @ Sachin Agrawal and further finding that there is a prima facie case made out under Section 302/201/34 IPC. against accused-Ghanshyam Gosai took cognizance of the said offences against the aforesaid accused persons and directed issuance of N.B.W.A. against them. It appears from the record that the complaint petition was filed by opposite party No.2-Rajesh Kumar Agrawal. In the said complaint petition, it has been stated that the complainant is the elder brother of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased with accused-petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 5.3.2003 at Khariar Road. The accused-petitioner No. 2 is the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was going to New Delhi with the accused-petitioner No.1 in a Car. The accused-petitioner Nos.3 to 6 are in-laws of the deceased.
It has been alleged by the complainant that after about two months from the date of their marriage, the accused-petitioner No.1 along with the in-laws, pressurized the deceased to bring Rs.7,00,000/- (seven lakhs) from her parents as dowry. The deceased used to come to her paternal house in almost every three months from New Delhi. She intimated the complainant and his family members about the consistent torture and assault by her husband and his family members to bring the dowry. On different occasions, the family members of the deceased had gone to the house of the accused for settlement of the matter, but to no avail. Further, after birth of the child, the accused-petitioner No.1 developed extra marital relationship with another lady, which was informed by the deceased to the complainant. In spite of the fact that the deceased was subjected to regular torture and assault but she tolerated the same, and also requested her family members not to approach the Court of Law as it will damage her marital relationship. Six months prior to the occurrence, the deceased intimated telephonically about the torture and demand of dowry by the petitioner No.1 at New Delhi for which the complainant and his younger brother went to New Delhi and assured the accused-petitioner No.1 to fulfil the dowry demand within a short span of time. On 12.3.2009, the accused-petitioner No.1 left the deceased in her paternal house and the family members of the deceased were threatened that only after fulfilment of the demand of dowry, the deceased will be taken to New Delhi otherwise she will be killed, for which she stayed n her paternal house. On 30.4.2009, the accused-petitioner No.1 informed the complainant over phone to be ready with the dowry as demanded. On the next day i.e. on 1.5.2009, he suddenly arrived at Khariar in a Santro Car bearing Registration No.DL-4C-ND-6583 and put-forth his demand before the family members of the deceased. Since the family members of the deceased expressed their incapacity, the petitioner No.1 forcibly took the deceased and her son, and left their house with intimation that by the next day, money should be paid to him. Without intimation to any of the family members of the deceased, the petitioner No.1 proceeded to New Delhi by the said Car with the deceased and her son. On 4.5.2009 at about 10.30 P.M., one Kamal Aggarwal and Bikash Aggarwal, who are not the family members of the accused-petitioner No.1, informed the family members of the deceased that there was an accident near BHEL under Babina Police Station and the complainant’s sister i.e. the wife of petitioner No.1, has expired in the said accident. Smelling foul play, the complainant informe
