The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.375 of 2022 Bhagirathi Satnami Petitioner Mr. Bijaya Kumar Behera, Advocate …. -Versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.S. Mohapatra,ASC for OP No.1 Mr. S.Moharana, Advocate for OP No.2 CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF JUDGMENT:26.04.2023 1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed by the petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceeding in connection with C.T. Case No.22 of 2022 pending in the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada corresponding to Jonk P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022 dated 11th January, 2022 registered under Sections 493, 417 and 294 of I.P.C on the grounds inter alia that the same is not maintainable since with the same allegations, Jonk P.S. Case No.261 dated 24th October, 2021 was registered which resulted in submission of a final report in C.T. Case No. 665 of 2021, wherein, the informant has been summoned to respond by order dated 5th January, 2022. 2. In fact, informant-opposite party No.2 has lodged an F.I.R., consequent upon which, Jonk P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022 was registered wherein she alleged that the petitioner had assured to marry and kept physical relationship with her but lastly he did not, rather, on being confronted, she was abused in filthy language. According to the petitioner, the informant had earlier lodged a similar report for which Jonk P.S. Case No. 261 of 2021 was registered under Section 493, 417, 294 and 313 I.P.C and CRLMC No. 375 of 2022 Page 1 of 5 Bhagirathi Satnami Vrs. State of Odisha & Another therein after completion of investigation, a final report was submitted and thereafter the learned Court below issued notice to opposite party No.2 to reply. It is further contention of the petitioner that the informant-opposite party No.2 without filing a protest petition, again lodged the F.I.R. dated 11th January, 2022. On filing of such a report, registration of Jonk P.S. Case No. 05 dated 11th January, 2022 cannot be sustained in law when on a similar allegation, investigation was concluded in Jonk P.S. Case No. 261 dated 24th October, 2021.
Legal Reasoning
3. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for opposite party No.2. 4. The allegation in Annexure-1 i.e. F.I.R. dated 11th January, 2022 is that the petitioner had kept physical relationship with opposite party No.2 and by taking a plea that his brother is not in favour of such marriage declined to for marriage her and also abused her in obscene language and then absconded. A copy of the other F.I. R i.e. date 24th October, 2021 is at Annexure-2, which was lodged at the instance of opposite party No.2 with similar allegation by claiming that she was administered medicines to abort her fetus as she had become pregnant due to the alleged relationship. More or less the allegations are similar in both the F.I.Rs i.e. Annexures- 1 & 2. 5. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the F.I.R. dated 24th October, 2021 was lodged by the opposite party No.2 and investigation was held in connection with Jonk P.S. No.261 of 2021 and it resulted in final report and instead of filing a protest petition, the report under Annexure-1 was lodged and Jonk P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022 was registered which should not have been entertained. CRLMC No. 375 of 2022 Page 2 of 5 Bhagirathi Satnami Vrs. State of Odisha & Another 6. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2, on the other hand, submits that the allegation against the petitioner, which is at the behest of opposite party No.2-informant, is required to be investigated upon by the local police in connection with Jonk P.S. Case No. 05 dated 11th January, 2022. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State shared his view point with reference to the contention of the petitioner. 7. Annexure-2 was lodged on 24th October, 2021 and at last, the final report was submitted on 30th November, 2021. As per the said report, no evidence was found against the petitioner, rather, opposite party No.2 alleged to have lodged the F.I.R being pressurized by her family. 8. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the final report as at Annexure-3 Series and also the order of the learned Court below at Annexure-4 which is with regard to notice to opposite party No.2 for filing of protest petition by her. From Annexure-3 Series, it is made to appear that the parties had decided for marriage and the petitioner had been to Chhattisgarh for arranging money and since he could not be contacted by opposite party No.2, the latter on being influenced by her family lodged the F.I.R. According to the local police, no evidence regarding the alleged mischief was found against the petitioner and furthermore, opposite party No.2 in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C claimed for withdrawal of the case. On receiving the final report vide Annexure-3 series, it is further made to appear from Annexure-4 that the learned court below issued notice to opposite party No.2 in order to enable her to file a protest petition which is usually the course of action adopted. When Annexure-1 is read in juxtaposition to Annexure-2, it is made to suggest that the dispute between the parties were on account of the petitioner having not married opposite party No.2 CRLMC No. 375 of 2022 Page 3 of 5 Bhagirathi Satnami Vrs. State of Odisha & Another as both of them were in a relationship. As per the final report vide Annexure-3 series, it is the realized that the parties had agreed for marriage but due to absence of the petitioner, the F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party No.2 on being influenced by her family. But on examination, the allegations in Annexure-1 do appear similar to Annexure-2. After the final report was submitted in the month of November, 2021, Annexure-1 was lodged on 11th January, 2022. In fact, after the final report was submitted, instead of responding to the notice of the learned Court below, opposite party No.2 instead of filing protest petition, lodged the F.I.R on 11th January, 2022, which, in the considered view of the Court, is impermissible. It the established procedure of law that in case a final report received by a court, notice is issued to the informant in order to facilitate him/her to file a protest petition. In case a protest petition is filed, in such a situation, the Court is to consider the final report and also the objection of the informant and then to proceed according to law. In the case at hand, the petitioner since alleged of the mischief by opposite party No.2 and later lodged an F.I.R which finally culminated in submission of final report and thereafter, the learned Court below summoned opposite party No.2 to file a protest petition, in the ultimate analysis of the Court, it is to be concluded that for the self same allegations, the subsequent F.I.R and the case registered in Jonk P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022 is not maintainable. However, the Court is also of the conclusion that opposite party No.2 is at liberty to file a protest petition in C.T. Case No. 665 of 2021 corresponding to Jonk P.S. No.261 of 2021 so that the learned court below can proceed for a decision in accordance with law. 9. Hence, it is ordered. 10. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the criminal proceeding in connection with C.T. Case CRLMC No. 375 of 2022 Page 4 of 5 Bhagirathi Satnami Vrs. State of Odisha & Another No.22 of 2022 of the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada corresponding to Jonk P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022 dated 11th January, 2022 currently pending before the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Nuapada in S.T. Case No.52 of 2022 is hereby quashed, however, with the liberty allowed in favour of opposite party No.2. BALARAM BEHERA Digitally signed by BALARAM BEHERA Date: 2023.05.04 21:45:29 +05'30' (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram CRLMC No. 375 of 2022 Page 5 of 5