Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.138 of 2026 (In the matter of an application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

Lochani Nayak & Ors. …. Petitioner (s)

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opp. Party (s)

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Satyabrata Dash, Adv.

R.K. Sarangi, Adv. V.K. Sharma, Adv.

For Opp. Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC Mr. Gajendranath Raut, Adv.

Mr. Suryakanta Palat, Adv.

(for O.P. No.2)

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-27.02.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.03.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The present CRLMC has been filed by three petitioners, namely the mother-in-law aged about 78 years, the sister-in-law, and the brother-in- law of Opposite Party No. 2, seeking quashing of the entire proceeding in D.V. Case No. 14 of 2025 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. (P), Kujang, instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

(i) Opposite Party No. 2 is the legally married wife of Hemanta Nayak.

Her case is that after marriage she lived in the matrimonial household along with her husband and his family members, including the present petitioners, and during the subsistence of that domestic relationship she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, neglect, deprivation of food, threats to her life, and other acts alleged to constitute domestic violence.

(ii) Prior to the institution of the D.V. proceeding, Opposite Party No. 2 had lodged Kujang P.S. Case No. 332 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 868 of 2023 against her husband and the present petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A/406/506/34 IPC. Charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken, charges were framed, and the case proceeded to full trial.

(iii) By judgment dated 05.04.2025, the learned J.M.F.C. (P), Kujang acquitted the accused persons in the said G.R. case, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges under Sections 498- A/406/506/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court noted omissions in the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, contradictions among prosecution witnesses, absence of seizure of alleged dowry articles, lack of medical evidence, and vagueness in relation to the allegation of criminal intimidation.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09 (iv) Thereafter, on 13.08.2025, Opposite Party No. 2 instituted D.V. Case No. 14 of 2025 seeking reliefs under Sections 17, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the PWDV Act. The present petitioners have challenged the continuance of that proceeding on the ground that it amounts to abuse of process, whereas the State and Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 contend that the D.V. proceeding is a distinct statutory remedy and is maintainable notwithstanding the earlier acquittal in the criminal case.

II. PETITIONERS’ SUBMISSIONS:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) The petitioners contend that the D.V. proceeding is a clear abuse of the process of law insofar as the present in-laws have been roped in again on the basis of the very same factual allegations which had earlier been made the subject matter of Kujang P.S. Case No. 332 of 2023 and which culminated in their acquittal after a full-fledged criminal trial.

(ii) It is their case that Opposite Party No. 2 has been residing in her parental house since lodging of the FIR and that no fresh cause of action has been disclosed against the present petitioners after the earlier criminal proceeding. According to them, the allegations in the domestic violence application are identical, in other words, substantially the same, as those contained in the FIR and the deposition in the prior criminal ca