Court confirmed that charges must be based on prima facie evidence during the discharge stage, and only extremely implausible allegations warrant quashing of charges.

Judgment :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Invoking revision jurisdiction of this court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Cr.P.C.), present revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside order dated 8^th May 2024 of learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack passed in G.R. Case No.1544 of 2020 and consequently to discharge the petitioners from the charged offences.

2. Three petitioners are there in present revision application and learned J.M.F.C. in G.R. Case No.1544 of 2020 took cognizance against them vide order dated 18^th December, 2023. Petitioner No.1 has been charged with offences under Section 498-A/506/341/294/509/ 34/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C.') and Petitioners No.2 and 3 are charge-sheeted for commission of offences under Section 34/509 of the I.P.C. in connection with Purighat P.S. Case No.0276 dated 19^th December, 2020.

3. The background facts of the case are that, Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 (Complainant) are reputed cine stars of Odia Film Industry and they married on 8^th February, 2014. After their marriage they lived as husband and wife and subsequently some matrimonial dispute arose between them for which matrimonial cases for divorce and restitution of conjugal right were filed respectively by both parties. It is submitted in course of hearing that, in the meantime, the divorce between Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 has been granted by this court in a separate proceeding. Several other cases including criminal cases and domestic violence cases have been filed by the parties and some of them have been disposed of while some are pending. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the close associates of Petitioner No.1.

4. During pendency of a domestic violence case between Opposite Party No.2 and Petitioner No.1 including his family members, an interim direction was granted in favour of Opposite Party No.2 to stay in her matrimonial house situated at Nandisahi within the jurisdiction of Purighat P.S. Said house consists of three floors Viz. Ground, 1^st and 2^nd floor. Access to the 1^st floor, where Petitioner No.1 was residing, was granted to Opposite Party No.2 by the direction of learned Magistrate in a proceeding under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to stay therein during pendency of the proceeding. Further, Opposite Party No.2 was granted with police protection around the clock and she was to be protected by presence of a police person with her. However, according to the allegations, Petitioner No.1 and his family members were not residing in the building after the direction was given by the court in favour of Opposite Party No.2 to stay in the 1^st floor of said building and Petitioner No.1 as well as his family members were staying separately after taking their necessary belongings from the house.

5. On 18^th December, 2020 when Opposite Party No.2 returned to the house around 10 pm along with her protection officer (police personnel) she found the petitioners present there at the entrance of the building. Petitioner No.1 asked Opposite Party No.2 for the keys of the 1^st floor. Opposite Party No.2 then without replying anything when went to upstairs found that the main gate of 1^st floor has been locked with support of a chain and a new lock other than the lock used by Opposite Party No.2. She then came down along with her protection officer and found Petitioner No.1 had already left the place in his car and Petitioner No.3 (Khagendra) standing there. The protection officer then asked Petitioner No.3 to give key of the new lock put in the main gate of the 1^st floor, to which he denied to have with the key