The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.5540 of 2014 Rupak Kumar Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. Balaram Nayak, Advocate -Versus- State of Orissa …. Opposite Party Mr. Tapas Kumar Praharaj, SC CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF JUDGMENT:15.02.2023 1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of cognizance under Annexure-2 as well as the criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.532 of 2012 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Puri on the
Legal Reasoning
grounds inter alia that no prima facie case is made out against him and the allegation to be omnibus in nature besides being false and imaginary and hence, it is liable to be interferred with and quashed in the interest of justice. 2. An FIR was lodged by the informant, as a result of which, Kumbharapada P.S. Case No.75 (20) dated 10th March, 2012 was registered under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation was directed against the accused husband and all the in-laws including the petitioner (middle brother-in-law). It is alleged therein that the in-laws including the husband tortured the informant physically and mentally and it was in connection with demand of dowry. After completion of investigation, the petitioner and other accused persons were chargesheeted, whereupon, the learned court below took cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 read with CRLMC No.5540 of 2014 Page 1 of 5 Rupak Kumar Mishra Vrs. State of Orissa 34 IPC besides Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide Annexure-2 which is presently under challenge so also the criminal proceeding. The ground of challenge is that the allegations are false and directed against all the in-laws without any specific instances or role allegedly played by the petitioner, who is serving in Merchant Navy and travel different places throughout the year. It is claimed that there is no allegation against the petitioner at all except the fact that the informant was not invited to his marriage as revealed from the FIR. With the above contention, the criminal proceeding vis-à-vis the petitioner is sought to be quashed. 3. Heard Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Ms. B. Mishra, Advocate and Mr. Praharaj, leaned counsel for the State. 4. It is contended that the allegations are false and there is no any specific instance or role attributed to the petitioner and with casual reference and omnibus allegation, he could not have been chargesheeted. It is submitted that the petitioner due to his job profile, used to work for months in the sea and in absence of any specific complaint against him by the informant, the order of cognizance and also the criminal proceeding cannot be sustained in law. While advancing such an argument, the following decisions in Kahkashan Kauser @ Sonam & Others Vrs. State of Bihar & Others 2022 (1) OLR SC 714; Preeti Gupta & Another Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Another (2010) 7 SCC 667; and Geeta Mehrotra & Another Vrs. State of U.P. & Another AIR 2013 SC 1821 have been referred to. 5. On the contrary, Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State submits that on a wholesome reading of the materials on record, the involvement of the petitioner is established to sustain the criminal prosecution against him, inasmuch as, the statements of the CRLMC No.5540 of 2014 Page 2 of 5 Rupak Kumar Mishra Vrs. State of Orissa witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicate that the petitioner is also guilty of ill-treatment meted out to the informant. In fact, as per Mr. Praharaj, on a perusal of the FIR and the evidence received during investigation, the allegation stares at the petitioner and therefore, he cannot be exonerated. 6. The Court is aware of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is an extra-ordinary jurisdiction which is to be exercised sparingly wherever it is necessary in order to do complete justice. In a given case, depending on the facts and circumstances, exercise of such jurisdiction may also be declined. But there is no fetter in the exercise of the powers by the Court. No limitation interferes with the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. As per the State of Haryana and Others Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the Apex Court has laid down the principles while dealing with the quashing of the criminal proceedings exercising inherent powers of the Court. If a case is not made out or no cognizable offence is said to have been committed or disclosed on perusal of the FIR or complaint, or where the allegations are absurd and improbable or to do proper and complete justice, jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised. 7. In Kahkashan Kauser @ Sonam (supra), the Supreme Court held that causal references or general allegations without any specific instances or role attributed to the in-laws, the criminal prosecution if allowed to continue against them would be a travesty of justice. The general tendency in implicating all the in-laws has been widely experienced and in that context, the Apex Court held and observed so. Similar view was expressed in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), wherein, the married sister-in-law was roped in without any clear and specific allegation against her. In the instant case, the petitioner is one of the brothers-in-law. On a reading of the FIR (Annexure-1), it CRLMC No.5540 of 2014 Page 3 of 5 Rupak Kumar Mishra Vrs. State of Orissa is made to understand that the youngest brother-in-law did play some role in the ill-treatment without any reference to the petitioner, who was by then serving in Merchant Navy. As a matter of fact, no specific role is alleged against the petitioner considering the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which are submitted before the Court along with case diary. Rather from the materials on record, some role by the other brother-in- law is revealed. Merely a casual reference against an in-law is not sufficient to criminally prosecute him or her which is what has been held by the Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and Kahkashan Kauser @ Sonam (supra). Initiating criminal prosecution against the members of the in-laws based on omnibus or general allegations would really be an abuse of the process of law. The Supreme Court in one of the above decisions had the observation that all the in- laws including the elders, such as, parents-in-law are implicated, who could play a vital role in settling the matrimonial disputes but such opportunity is lost as a result. It is also realized that the married sisters-in-law staying separate are subjected to criminal prosecution with general allegations made against them. It is not that in each and every case, such is the situation but the Apex Court sounded a caution about the cases where the in-laws are involved and criminally prosecuted which results in unnecessary harassment being caused to them. In the instant case, the Court does find that the petitioner is a brother-in-law of the informant and there is as such no allegation or grievance against him as revealed from Annexure-1 and also bears the testimony from the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Applying the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the decisions (supra), it would not be unjust to conclude that the petitioner, who is one of the brothers-in-law could not have been chargesheeted along with others when there has been no specific complaint against him by CRLMC No.5540 of 2014 Page 4 of 5 Rupak Kumar Mishra Vrs. State of Orissa the informant and the allegations whatever are found to be general and omnibus. 8. Accordingly, it is ordered. 9. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed. Consequently, the order of cognizance under Annexure-2 and the criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.532 of 2012 corresponding to Kumbharapada P.S. Case No. 75(20) dated 10th March, 2012 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Puri vis-à-vis the petitioner is hereby quashed for the reasons discussed herein above. 1 . 2. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge U.K. Sahoo CRLMC No.5540 of 2014 Page 5 of 5