The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 699 of 2024 Kaja Rama Rao and another …. Petitioners Mr. D. Panda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Mr. M. K. Mohanty, ASC Opp. Parties CORAM: JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 06.04.2024 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the State. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek the indulgence of this Court praying to quash the order of cognizance taken by the learned Nyayadhikari-cum-JMFC, Kashinagar, Gajapati vide order dated 27.09.2023 in 1CC Case No.1 of 2023. 3. The background facts of the case are that one Yarnagula Malathi wife of Bavisetty Santosh Kumar lodged a written report with Kashinagar PS to the effect that she got married to Bavisetty Santosh Kumar on 15.06.2019. Initially, she led a blissful married life but after about 8 months of the marriage, she allegedly to have been subjected to torture both mentally and physically for demand of further dowry. As she brought it to the notice of her husband and requested him to take her to his place of work, her husband Bavisetty Santosh Kumar took her to Bangalore for some days. However, the parents-in-law also followed her and stayed together and continued the torture. The Informant who Page 1 of 5 // 2 // was 2-months pregnant was forcefully administered medicine allegedly supplied by the present Petitioner-Kaja Rama Rao the maternal uncle of the husband of the informant as a result of which there was miscarriage. Subsequently, the husband and other members of the in-laws demanded further dowry and in the process the parents of the Informant paid Rs.2 lakhs, gold ornament and also paid money from time to time but it did not satisfy the in-laws. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid conduct of the in-laws and the husband, the Informant moved a motion by lodging the report as above. 4. On the basis of the report, the Police implicated the husband and the members of the in-laws besides the present Petitioners. 5. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioners argued that the sole allegation against the Petitioners is that on the medicine supplied by the Petitioner to the family of the in-laws of the Informant, they administered the same and the pregnancy of the Informant got aborted. He further submitted that initially, the offence under Section 313 IPC was arrayed against the Petitioners and others whereas subsequently upon investigation, the said offence was found not made out and was deleted. According to Mr. Panda, while the charge-sheet was submitted against all the members of the in-laws including the husband and the Petitioners herein, the Informant lodged protest petition before the learned Magistrate substantiating the fact that the offence under Section 313 IPC is also made out which was been deleted at the time of submission of the charge-sheet. The learned Magistrate having considered the protest petition of the Informant-wife while rejected the plea of the Informant to the effect that any case is made out under Section 313 IPC, it took cognizance against the Petitioners under Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Sections 498-A/506/34 IPC and Section 4 DP Act. It is further submitted by Mr. Panda, the learned counsel for the Petitioners that there is no material against the Petitioners that at any point of time they subjected the Informant-wife to ill-treatment and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and/or extended any threat. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand fairly submitted that the offence under Section 313 IPC has not been accepted by the court and was deleted at the time of submission of charge-sheet. He however submitted that the charge sheet submitted otherwise is in consonance with law and as revealed from the investigation. 7. In the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. V. Biological E. Ltd., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 269 , the Apex Court have held as follows:- “Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge- sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgement of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations leveled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face of it do not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. To exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint in its entirety will have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the High Court at that stage has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face Page 3 of 5 // 4 // of the complaint shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint. The truth or falsity of the allegations would not be gone into by the Court at this earliest stage. Whether or not the allegations in the complaint were true is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led at the trial. 10. It is only in cases when the allegations in the complaint do not make out any case against the accused nor do they disclose the ingredients of an offence alleged against the accused or the allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach to such a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised to quash the prosecution, is also the view in the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. (supra). 8. Following the principles as above, from the submissions made by the parties and upon perusal of the case record, it reveals that the learned the sole ground on which the Petitioners have been arrayed in the case is that they supplied medicine by administration of which the pregnancy of the informant got aborted. These allegations got belied as no prima facie material was found by the investigating agency in course of the investigation and accordingly, the offence U/s.313 IPC which was initially arrayed at the time of registration of the FIR got deleted at the time of submission of Charge Sheet. 9. Another aspect which is pointed out by the learned counsel Mr. Panda is in respect to the manner of acceptance of the protest Petition by the learned court. Since the Charge sheet has been submitted against all the accused persons named in the FIR with relevant offences found in course of investigation there was no occasion for the informant to file a protest Petitioner nor the court was to accept the same for consideration. In this context it may be stated that the Code of Criminal Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Procedure mandates the right on the informant to file the protest Petition in case of a final report submitted by the investigating agency on the FIR lodged. Herein, the Charge Sheet has been submitted against all the Persons named in the FIR on the offences found made out in course of the investigation. If at all it triggered the informant when the particular offence U/s.313 IPC found deleted could have been agitated at the appropriate time by bringing a motion through the prosecution for addition of the charge in case any such evidence would have come during trial. In any case, the filing and acceptance of the protest Petition filed in the manner being not in consonance with the procedure established is per se illegal. 10. The order impugned showing the cognizance taken against the Petitioners accordingly being not in consonance with law save and accept as discussed above deserves to be quashed. The cognizance against the Petitioners accordingly stands quashed. However, it is made clear that the charge sheet submitted as such would not be affected on the quashment of the cognizance taken in the impugned order which is one pursuant to the consideration of the protest Petition. The CRLMC stands disposed of accordingly. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) AKPradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 09-Apr-2024 19:30:40 Page 5 of 5