The court held that sufficient prima facie evidence warranted trial against some Petitioners for cruelty and dowry harassment, while quashing proceedings against one Petitioner due to vague allegations.

JUGDMENT :

CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.

1. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to challenge the order of cognizance dated 19.08.2015, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore in CT Case No.2268 of 2014.

2. The background facts of the case are that Petitioner No.1 married Opposite Party No.2 on 23.11.2008, and both were employed in different cities. After some time, due to job-related issues, Opposite Party No.2 returned to live with Petitioner No.1. Over time, disputes arose between the couple, particularly concerning her reluctance to stay with her in-laws and insistence on a separate residence. Several attempts at reconciliation, including police intervention and compromise, failed. The parties continued to live separately, and Petitioner No.1 eventually filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. On 10.04.2014, a physical altercation occurred between the parties, following which cross-cases were registered at Sahadev Khunta P.S. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.2 lodged ICC Case No. 1184 of 2014 alleging dowry harassment, which was registered as Balasore Town P.S. Case No. 237 of 2014. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned SDJM, Balasore on 19.08.2015 against all the Petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order of cognizance, the Petitioners have approached this Court in the present CRLMC.

3. Ms. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that Opposite Party No.2, in P.S. Case No. 213 of 2014, alleged that she was subjected to torture by the Petitioners to the extent of not being provided even a square meal a day during her pregnancy. It was further alleged that she was assaulted and locked in a room due to the non-fulfilment of a dowry demand of Rs. 5 lakhs in cash. According to Ms. Jena, Opposite Party No.2 also alleged that the Petitioners did not allow her to meet her parents and family members. In the meantime, she gave birth to a male child and continued to endure the alleged torture and cruelty, hoping that the Petitioners’ attitude would change. However, the situation worsened, and it is alleged that the Petitioners plotted to kill her by setting her on fire. Sensing danger, she left for her parental house at Madhuban, Baripada. Ms. Jena contended that Opposite Party No.2, in order to cover up her own misconduct, filed a false complaint case in January 2014 for the first time, alleging torture for non-fulfilment of a dowry demand. By that time, Petitioner No.1 had already taken steps toward divorce, made a Station Diary Entry against Opposite Party No.2, and had filed a proceeding for divorce in 2013 on grounds of cruelty and desertion. She argued that, from the above conduct of the Petitioners, it can be safely concluded that Balasore Town P.S. Case No. 237 of 2014, which gave rise to C.T. Case No. 2268 of 2014, is nothing but an afterthought, filed with the intention to harass the Petitioners. Ms. Jena further submitted that Opposite Party No.2, with full knowledge, falsely implicated Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, who are the parents-in-law and sister-in-law. According to her, Petitioner No.4 was working as an Assistant Teacher at S.N. High School, Basta, and except for omnibus allegations, no specific statements have been made against her. Ms. Jena also pointed out that omnibus allegations were made against Petitioner No.2, the father- in-law, who is a retired police officer, and Petitioner No.3, the mother-in-law, who is a retired government school teacher. In totality, Ms. Jena submitted that the order of cognizance taken against the Petitioners b