Continuation of legal proceedings is unsustainable where allegations lack merit and essential elements of the offense are not established.

Judgment :

G.SATAPATHY, J.

The Petitioners seek the indulgence of the Court to exercise inherent power to set aside the order passed on 13.04.2005 by learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in ICC Case No. 626 of 2015 taking cognizance of offence U/Ss. 494/506/34 of IPC together with issuing process against the petitioners and consequently, to quash the criminal proceeding in such complaint.

2. Facts in nut-shell is O.P. No. 1 instituted a complaint in 1CC Case No. 626 of 2015 against the Petitioners and O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, and in such complaint, the complainant-O.P. No.1 has stated that the Petitioner No. 1 had married to one Ajay Kumar Sharma on 02.08.2002 by registering their marriage before the Marriage Officer, Cuttack in terms of Special Marriage Act, 1954, but subsequently after two years of this marriage, the Petitioners and O.P.Nos.2 to 4 approached the parents of O.P. No. 1 and negotiated for marriage of Petitioner No.1 with O.P. No.1 and accordingly, their marriage was solemnized on 08.12.2004, but it was alleged in the complaint that the marriage of Petitioner No.1 with O.P.No.1 was done without disclosing the earlier marriage of Petitioner No.1 with said Ajaya Kumar Sharma by practicing fraud and when O.P. No.1 confronted this fact to Petitioners, they threatened him to kill, if he exposes the fact of earlier marriage anywhere and accordingly, on 28.02.2015 they sent two anti-social to his house and such persons threatened him to kill. On this complaint, the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar recorded the initial statement of complainant and statement of witnesses in an inquiry U/S. 202 Cr.P.C. and on finding prima facie case, the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar by the impugned order took cognizance of offences U/Ss. 494/506/34 of IPC and issued process in the form of summons to the Petitioners and O.P. No.2 to 4. Feeling aggrieved with such order, the Petitioners have approached this Court in this CRLMC by arraying the complainant as O.P. No.1 and accused No. 2 to 4 as Proforma OP No.-2 to 4.

3. In the course of hearing of CRLMC, in relying upon the judgment passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in C.P. No. 479 of 2011 and order passed on 02.04.2003 by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No. 562 of 2002, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that since the marriage of Petitioner No.1 with Ajay Kumar Sharma, had already been annulled by an order passed on 02.04.2003 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in C.P. Case No. 562 of 2002, which is more than one year and four months before the marriage of petitioner No.1 with OP No.1, the cognizance taken by the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar for offence U/S. 494 is not sustainable and she being the legally married wife of O.P. No.1 who had unsuccessfully prosecuted a proceeding before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. Case No. 479 of 2011 to get a divorce from Petitioner No.1 itself speaks in volume that the O.P. No.1 by suppressing the facts has instituted the complaint in this case and thereby, the very foundation of complaint being on false premises, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law and therefore, the criminal proceeding against the Petitioners and O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. In summing up the argument, learned counsel for the Petitioners prays to quash the impugned order and the criminal proceeding in 1CC Case No. 626 of 2015. None appears on behalf of O.Ps. despite valid service of notice upon them.

4. After having considered the uncontroverted submissions mad