Back
2020 Supreme(Ori) 81
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.
Ajit Kumar Sahoo and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 981 of 2020
Decided On : 05-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: M/s. T. Panigrahi, S. Mishra.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anupam Rath.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that specific and grave allegations of serious offenses warrant further investigation and trial, and may not be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - 498A/323/506/354/34 IPC - [Section 482 of Cr.P.C.] - [Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash the proceedings of a case pending in the court, which arose from allegations of offenses under Sections 498A/323/506/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) made by the complainant-victim against the petitioner and his family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations were specific and grave, and not of a general nature, and therefore, the matter needed to be investigated further and the petitioners needed to face the rigour of trial to meet the ends of justice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petition to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be entertained, considering the allegations of serious offenses made by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations were specific and serious, and therefore, the petition to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was rejected, allowing the trial to proceed.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the accused/petitioner, but allowed the petitioner to raise all the points at the time of framing of the charge, to be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of C.T. Case No. 2869 of 2019 pending in the court of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 72 of 2019 under Sections 498A/323/506/354/34 IPC and all proceedings consequent thereto.
2. The allegations in the FIR are as summarised herein-below:
(a) The complainant-victim Mrs. Jharana Behera, lodged a complaint on 01.07.2019 in the Mahila Police Station-Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda. The content of the complaint as set out implicates the petitioner No. 1 and his family including his father, mother, adopted brother, adopted brothers sister and adopted brother’s wife, for committing the offences punishable under 498A/323/506/354/34 of I.P.C.
(b) According to the complainant, she had tied the nuptial knot with the petitioner No. 1 on 16.01.2011. The petitioner No. 1’s family was provided with hefty amount of dowry which included Television, Washing Machine, Refrigerator etc. and cash amounting to Rs. 2,20,000. In the initial years of marriage, the complainant was treated with disdain by her in-laws for more dowry. It has been further alleged that her refusal to buzz to their demand led to regular physical and mental torture by her in-laws and constant intimidation.
(c) The complainant has alleged that the adopted brother of the petitioner No. 1 namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tripathy tried to drag her saree attempting to outrage her modesty. She has also alleged that the petitioner No. 1 has kept unnatural sexual relationship with her.
(d) Further, the petitioner No. 1 and his family forced the complainant to worship his father who is a self-declared godman by drinking the water which was used for washing by his feet and putting his urine in her eyes, on the refusal of which she was the receiving end of constant physical and mental torture by the accused.
3. Mr. T. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the petitioner No. 1 and his family have no role in the alleged commission of offences. The FIR filed by the complainant is misconceived, concocted and it does not attract any offences alleged against the petitioners and it was filed only with vexatious and oblique motive. Further the allegations made in the FIR and Statements extracted under section 161 as well as section 164 of Cr. P.C. do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. In fact, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offences and they have been made with an ulterior motive wreaking vengeance against the accused due to personal grudge. The ambiguity and material infirmity of the allegations can be seen through the discrepancies in the prosecution case and the statement of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the proceedings may be quashed under section 482 Cr. P.C. as it is a clear abuse of the process of law.
4. Per Contra, Sri. Anupam Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He further contended that the case in hand is hungry for a proper trial and nipping at the bud, at this stage, will lead to miscarriage of justice.
5. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the case diary to go deeper into the case. While dealing with the case in hand, it is apt to recall the illustrative categories as enunciated in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 w.r.t. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. paragraph 102 of the said judgment which is as under:
“102. (1) 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do n
