The right to be heard in criminal proceedings must be balanced with potential abuse of legal provisions in domestic disputes, particularly concerning distant relatives not substantially involved in the alleged offenses.

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. An application U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner by way of this CRLMC prays to direct issuance of summons against O.P.Nos.2 to 12 in I.C.C. No. 889 of 2017 along with four accused persons charge-sheeted in Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.132 dated 17.09.2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1538 of 2014 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack.

2. The short facts involved in this case arise out of an FIR lodged by the petitioner against her husband, in-laws and others numbering 15 persons before the IIC, Mahila P.S., Cuttack alleging therein against them for subjecting her to torture and cruelty for demand of dowry, causing miscarriage of her pregnancy as well as assaulting and threatening her and also specifically against her brother-in-law for ravishing her and, accordingly, the investigation ensued, which culminated in submission of charge- sheet only against husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law, but not against the other persons named in the FIR. However, the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack after going through the materials placed on record took cognizance of offences U/Ss.498-A/376/506/406/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act and issued summons to the above four charge sheeted accused persons. Feeling aggrieved with non-submission of charge-sheet against O.P.Nos.2 to 12, the petitioner filed a protest petition in shape of complaint against O.P.Nos.2 to 12 in 1.C.C. Case No.899 of 2017 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack, who by an order passed on 20.01.2017, dropped the complaint by holding it to be not maintainable. Aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present CRLMC for the relief indicated in the preceding paragraph.

3. In the course of hearing of CRLMC, Mr. Balaram Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has filed an FIR against 15 persons, but the Investigating Officer had only submitted charge-sheet against four persons leaving 11 accused persons without any proper investigation/reasons and the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack has fallen in error while taking cognizance of offences, agreeing with the police report submitted U/S.173(2) of Cr.P.C. and not issuing notice to O.P.Nos.2 to 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner being the informant has right to be noticed and heard before dropping of the proceeding against some of the accused persons, who have been arraigned as accused persons for the act done on the informant, but the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack having not issued notice or heard the informant, has passed the order ignoring to issue summons to O.P.Nos.2 to 12, who are liable for the offences committed upon the informant and, therefore, the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack having failed to comply the mandate of law, may be directed to issue summons to O.P.Nos.2 to 12 to face the trial in the case.

4. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned AGA, however, submits that the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack has not committed any illegality and after taking into account the materials on record, the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack has acted judicially to issue notice upon the accused persons prima facie responsible for the commission of offences. Learned AGA accordingly prays to dismiss the CRLMC.

5. Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for O.P.Nos.2 to 12, however, reiterating the submission advanced by the learned AGA, further submits that in a matrimonial case, there is a tendency of over implication of the in-laws by the wife and in this case, the materials on record squarely disclose the anxiety of the infor