The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.867 of 2022 Debaraj Behera and another …. Petitioner(s) Mr. J. Samantaray, Advocate along with Mr. S. G. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. S. J. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 13. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 15.04.2025 Heard. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. dated 31.01.2018 in Bhubaneswar Info City P.S. Case No.10 of 2018 came to be registered against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498- A/323/294/506/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law whereas the petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the opposite party No.2. In this case, the opposite party No.2, who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners has registered the case against the petitioners. The husband of the opposite party No.2 is not an accused in this case rather he has been cited as a witness, who has deposed against his own parents. Page 1 of 6 3. The allegation against the petitioners in the F.I.R. is that on 31.01.2018, the informant/opposite party No.2 lodged a written report alleging therein that her in-laws being the petitioners tortured her both physically and mentally and abused her. Hence, this case. 4. Vide order dated 06.09.2024, notice was issued to the informant/opposite party No.2. However, the notice could not be served. Therefore, this Court vide order dated 29.01.2025 directed the I.I.C., Bhubaneswar Info City Police Station to serve the notice on opposite party No.2. Pursuant thereto, the I.I.C. Info City P.S., Bhubaneswar has furnished a report dated 08.02.2025 inter alia stating as under:- “In inviting a reference and subject cited above, I have the Honour to intimate that as per direction of Hon’ble High Court of Odisha, Cuttack a Notice has been ordered to serve to the Informant of this case namely Bijay Laxmi Behera, W/O- Rabi Prasad Behera R/O- Plot no.214, Kanan Vihar Phase-II, Near Idea office at Patia, PS-Infocity, Dist-Khurdha but unfortunately the Informant was not residing at the resident as mentioned. Asked the local permanent habitant they stated that she is residing at London in the last 7 years. The original acknowledgement is enclosed herewith.” 5. It is apparent from the record that the informant/opposite party No.2 is now residing with her husband at London. The petitioners are the senior citizens. They have been undergoing Page 2 of 6 ordeal of the criminal prosecution initiated by the opposite party No.2 in the year 2018. 6. Although charge-sheet was filed in the year 2022 and the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar vide order dated 10.01.2022 has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498(A)/323/34 of I.P.C. against the petitioners, but because of the regular absence of the informant/opposite party No.2, the case is not proceeding an inch since then. At this stage, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal case pending against them. 7. Perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the informant/opposite party No.2 has made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners i.e. her in-laws that after birth of a girl child, they have mentally and physically abused her. Surprisingly, in the present case, the son of the petitioners i.e. the husband of the opposite party No.2 has also made omnibus allegation against the petitioners inter alia stating that the petitioners have been mentally harassing the opposite party No.2. Both the opposite party No.2 and her husband are residing at London. The present petitioners are the senior citizens and suffering the criminal prosecution at the late evening of their life. Page 3 of 6 8. Mr. Samantray, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vrs. State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022. He has relied upon paragraphs- 12 and 22 of the said judgment, which reads as under:- “12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” 9. Mr. Samantray, learned counsel further submits that on the basis of the bald, omnibus allegations devoid of the materials on record, the petitioners cannot be subjected to the criminal Page 4 of 6 prosecution particularly when the informant/opposite party No.2 is not the resident of India. Repeated attempts made by the petitioner to serve the opposite party No.2 yield no result. Therefore, through the I.I.C. of Infocity Police Station where F.I.R. has been registered attempts were made for serving her. However, she has not been responding to the same. In this circumstance, continuation of the criminal proceeding on the basis of the omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners by their daughter-in-law for commission of offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. would be a abuse of process of law and the prosecution is destine to be a futile exercise. The case of the petitioners are directly covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi & others vs. State of Haryana & another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675. 10. Regard being had to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi & others vs. State of Haryana & another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, I am of the considered view that subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of Page 5 of 6 the trial would be a futile exercise. Therefore, the petition deserves merit. 11. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with C.T. Case No.2101 of 2018 arising out of Bhubaneswar Info City P.S. Case No.10 of 2018 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed. 12. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Jul-2025 18:12:25 Page 6 of 6