The absence of independent allegations against co-defendants in a complaint, primarily stemming from marriage discord, warrants quashing of cognizance to prevent abuse of legal process.

Judgment :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to quash the order dated 02.04.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, in 1.C.C. Case No.1985 of 2015.

2. The background facts of the case are that Petitioner No.1 (since deceased) married Durgamadhab Patro, the Opposite Party No.2 herein (the complainant in I.C.C. Case No.1985 of 2015), in the year 2009. Subsequently, discord arose in their matrimonial life, as Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 were unable to maintain a harmonious relationship. Several cases were instituted by Petitioner No.1 against Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.2 lodged a complaint before the police alleging harassment and assault by the Petitioners. As the police did not register an FIR, Opposite Party No.2 approached the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, and filed a complaint, which was registered as I.C.C. Case No.1985 of 2015. In the said complaint, Opposite Party No.2, inter alia, alleged that after the couple i.e. Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 were blessed with a male child, their relationship further deteriorated. Opposite Party No.2 believed that shortcomings on the part of Petitioner No.1 in taking care of the child had led to such discord. He further stated that he later came to know that Petitioner No.1 was allegedly maintaining an illicit relationship with Petitioner No.3 and that she was not behaving properly with him, acting instead with the intention of taking revenge in various forms. As a consequence of this alleged conduct, Petitioner No.1 purportedly demanded money from Opposite Party No.2 and threatened that if her demands were not met, she would initiate criminal proceedings against him. It is further alleged that upon Opposite Party No.2 not complying with such demands, Petitioner No.1 lodged an FIR against him at the Mahila Police Station, pursuant to which he was arrested, remained in custody for about twelve to thirteen days, and was released thereafter. Opposite Party No.2 further alleged that Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 once approached him proposing a compromise with Petitioner No.1. They allegedly asked him to visit the house of Petitioner No.1 in the evening. When Opposite Party No.2 visited the said house as requested, all the Petitioners allegedly misbehaved with him, demanded a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) towards settlement, and threatened to withdraw the civil case pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.

At the behest of Opposite Party No.2, the complaint, in essence, contains allegations of assault, threat, and intimidation against the Petitioners, primarily directed towards Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, and 6. The learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, upon complying with the statutory requirements for taking cognizance of a complaint including recording the initial statement of the complainant and conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. took cognizance of the offences under Sections 294 /313/506/354/34 of the I.P.C vide order dated 02.04.2016.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of cognizance passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, the Petitioners have approached this Court, inter alia, on the grounds that the complaint is false, vexatious, and unsupported by any material. It is further contended that the complaint is nothing but a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the Petitioners regarding the ill-treatment and cruelty allegedly meted out to Petitioner No.1 by Opposite Party No.2. According to the Petitioners, the impugned order taking cognizance under Sections 294 /313/506/354/34 I.P.C. is illegal, unsustainable in law, does not disclose any pr