Misc. Case No. 64 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.53 of 2023 (From the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara, in Crl. Misc. Case No.64 of 2021). Luina Pradhan …. Petitioner(s) Priyadarsini Pradhan …. Opposite Party(s) -versus- Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Petitioner(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Susanta Kumar Tripathy, Adv. For Opposite Party(s) : Mr. Sarada Prasad Dash, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-22.11.2023 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -22.12.2023 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In this CRLREV, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara, in Crl. Misc. Case No.64 of 2021 rejecting her Petition for expunging her name from the proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act/ 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the D.V. Act” for brevity). I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. Brief fact of the case is that, the Opposite Party had filed a petition in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. Nimapara under Section 12 of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Jan-2024 17:58:35 Page 1 of 5 D.V Act against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and the present petitioner (sister-in-law). The Opposite Party married to the brother of the Petitioner named Somya Ranjan Naik on 08.09.2019 as per Hindu caste and custom, in the presence of friends and relatives of the both the sides. After marriage, the Petitioner and her husband lived a happy married life. During marriage, as per demand of in- laws, cash, gold, silver and other house hold articles were given. It was alleged, after four months of her marriage, her husband started demanding Rs.50,000/- and torturing which was supported by the parents-in-law. It was further alleged that the in-laws’ members deprived her sufficient food and required medicine etc. She was also assaulted by her husband quite frequently. Ultimately, the Opposite Party was relinquished from the matrimonial home and was staying with her parents. Ultimately, they had made complaint before Kakatpur Police Station and Kakatpur P.S. Case No.82 of 2021 has been registered under Section 498-A and Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act against the members of the in-laws of the Petitioner. However, on the complaint of the Opposite Party, the Petitioner has been entangled in this case. Hence, the Petitioner had filed a Petition before the court below to expunge her from the prosecution initiated under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. However, the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara, vide order dated 14.11.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No.64 of 2021 rejected her Petition. Therefore, the Petitioner is constrained to file this CRLREV. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Jan-2024 17:58:35 Page 2 of 5 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner, sister-in-law of the Opposite Party, had married to one Ligaraj Pradhan of Nayahat in the year 2008 and since then she is residing at Nayahat with her spouse and leading a happy marital life. Under the above facts and circumstances, when the Petitioner is not in a domestic relationship with the other accused, the proceeding under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act is not at all maintainable against her. 4. It was also submitted that the Petitioner had filed a petition before the Magistrate with a prayer to discharge her from the proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the D.V. Act as after her marriage, she is not in “domestic relationship” with the Opposite Party as defined under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act. On the other hand, she is a member of the “shared household” as defined under Section 2(s) of said Act. 5. He further submitted that the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara without perusing the materials available on records in its proper perspective and without taking into consideration the position of a married sister within the purview of the D.V. Act, rejected the petition of the Petitioner vide the impugned order. 6. Advancing the aforesaid submission, he submitted that the trial court should have allowed the prayer of the Petitioner for expunging her name from the proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the D.V. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Jan-2024 17:58:35 Page 3 of 5 Act. Hence, he submits to allow this CRLREV, set-aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara, in Crl. Misc. Case No.64 of 2021 and direct for expunging her name from the proceeding. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARY: 7. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party, on the other hand, submitted that the present Petitioner being the sister-in-law of the Opposite Party is also involved in this case. He further submitted that on considering entirety of the circumstances, the impugned order was passed. There appears no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, he submits that the CRLREV filed by the Petitioner may be dismissed being devoid of merit. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 8. On perusal of contents of the petition filed by the Opposite Party under Section 12 of the D.V. Act as well as the petition filed by the petitioner before the trial court for expunging her from the proceeding and the averments made in the present CRLREV, contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner does not appear to be unfounded. Moreover, the impugned order does not reveal that the relevant provisions available under the D.V. Act were followed at the time of initiation of proceeding against the Petitioner or expunging from the proceeding under the D.V. Act. Even, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Jan-2024 17:58:35 Page 4 of 5 trial court does not appear to have referred to the contents of the Petition filed by the Petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the matter is required to be remitted back to the trial court for passing fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. The Petitioner may raise the contentions raised in this CRLREV at the time of consideration of her petition afresh by the trial court. 9. Accordingly, the CRLREV is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara, in Crl. Misc. Case No.64 of 2021 rejecting the Petitioner’s Petition for expunging her name from the proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara to pass fresh order on the Petitioner’s petition for expunge her from the aforesaid proceeding as per law.
Decision
10. Accordingly, this CRLREV is disposed of. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 22nd Dec., 2023/B. Jhankar Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 31-Jan-2024 17:58:35 Page 5 of 5