IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2549 of 2017 An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. Arman Khan

2. Ayub Khan

3. Robi Bibi

4. Rihana Parween 5. Reshma Parween

6. Ashma Parween

7. Taher Khan 8. Gora Khan

9. Sonu @ SolemanKhan …. Petitioners -versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioners : None For Opposite Party : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

JUDGMENT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing and Judgment : 9th February, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMC has been filed with the following prayer:

“It is therefore prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit this Crl.M.C. issue notice to the Opp. Party and after hearing the statement/observation made in the paragraph - 2 of the impugned notice at Annexure-3 series showing the petitioners as convicts in the alleged offences may kindly be quashed and the condition imposed at serial No. 2 & 5 of the said impugned notice may kindly be modified to such extent to which this Hon'ble Court to deem just and proper.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

FACT OF THE CASE IN BRIEF

2. Petitioner No.1 is the husband and other petitioners are the in-laws of the informant-Anjum Bibi. She had filed 1CC Case No. 114 of 2017 in the Court of the JMFC Chandikhole against the petitioners. Pursuant to direction of the learned JMFC, under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C, Balichandrapur P.S. Case No. 100 of 2017 under Section – 294/323/506/498-A/ 34 Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) read with Section – 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short “DP Act”), was registered against the petitioners which corresponds to G.R. case No 628 of 2017 in the file of the learned JMFC Chandikhole.

3. During investigation, the petitioners received notices under Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C, dated 28.05.2017, in Odiya language where it was stated that there was enough material to indicate that they were guilty of committing offences under Section - 294/323/506/498-A/ 34 IPC and Section – 4 of the DP Act. It was also stated at condition (II) that accused - petitioners will appear every 15 days in the police station and before the I.O as and when required by him and will co-operate till completion of investigation and under condition No.V, it was stated that the accused-petitioners should not leave the territorial jurisdiction without prior intimation of the I.O. and shall not in any manner hamper/interfere with the investigation.

SUBMISSIONS

4. As none appeared for the petitioners, I perused the averments in the CRLMC and the order sheet in ABLPL No. 11273 of 2017 filed by Petitioner No. 1 which had been tagged to the CRLMC.

5. In the CRLMC petition it is stated that the petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail in ABLPL No. 9626 of 2017 and ABLPL No. 11273 of 2017. It is also stated that Petitioner No. 1,7,8 and 9 are working in hotels outside the district and state / doing business. Petitioner No.1 was married and residing in his matrimonial home. Petitioner No 2 and 3 were old and infirm persons. Though all of them are willing to co-operate with the investigation, the conditions were onerous and liable for interference. The notice was also illegal as it was stated therein that the petitioners were guilty of committing the offences.

6. Perusal of the order sheet in ABLPL No. 11273 of 2017 reveals that by order dated 25.07.2017 passed ABLPL No. 11273 of 2017, it had been directed that the petitioner would be released on interim bail in the event of his arrest and to appear before the I.O. for the purpose of investigation as and when required. On 22.06.2021, ABLPL No. 11273 of 2017 was finally disposed of directing the petitioner to be released on bail on his surrender before the learned JMF