The court ruled that allegations of deception and cheating under IPC Sections 493 and 417 were not substantiated, leading to the quashment of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The Petitioner is the sole accused in G.R. Case No.190/2023 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh at Rourkela facing trial for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 493/417/506 of I.P.C. In the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., he seeks quashment of the aforesaid criminal proceedings.

2. The facts of the case are that on 01.12.2023, an F.I.R. was lodged by the victim (name withheld) before the I.I.C., Mahila P.S., Sector-3, Rourkela stating therein that she and the Petitioner accused had married in the Court on 13.1.2023 at Rourkela. It was further stated that she and the Petitioner had a relationship of more than 4 years. They had earlier married in Samaleswari Temple at Sector-5 on 14.4.2021 and were living as husband and wife. However, the Petitioner being instigated by his parents inflicted physical torture on her demanding Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry.

On such complaint being lodged, Rourkela Mahila P.S. Case No.2/2023 was registered under Sections 493/417/506 of I.P.C. and investigation was taken up. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Petitioner-accused for the aforementioned offences on 31.10.2023. The Petitioner had originally approached this Court in CRLMC No.993/2023, which was disposed of by order dated 5.5.2023 directing him to surrender before the Court below and to move for bail. Accordingly, the Petitioner surrendered in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh on 16.5.2023 and was released on bail on the same day.

3. Heard Mr. S.R.Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner-accused and Mr. R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

4. Mr. Das would argue that when the admitted case of the victim is that she and the Petitioner had a love relationship for more than 4 years and were also married in the temple and Court, the F.I.R. allegations can only be treated as exaggerated. He further submits that even otherwise, none of the offences as alleged are made out against the Petitioner. Mr. Das also refers to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to submit that the prosecution case as laid is not at all made out for which continuance of the case would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

5. Mr. R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, argues that there is a clear allegation of demand of Rs.2,00,000/- by the Petitioner from the victim and of subjecting her to physical torture for such reason. Moreover, it is clear from the materials on record that the Petitioner is guilty of deceiving the victim that he had married her only with an intent to make an unlawful gain by utilizing her.

6. Before proceeding to examine the merits of the rival contentions noted above, this Court would like to keep in mind the principles for exercising inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at the outset. It is trite law that if the offences alleged are, on the face of it, not made out, continuance of the case would be an abuse of the process of Court and in such event, the High Court can exercise its inherent power to stop the proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the celebrated decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others; reported in 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 335, wherein certain guidelines were issued for exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below;

“(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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an o