The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1081 of 2022 Snehalata Singh and Others …. Petitioners Mr. Hemant Ku. Rout, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate for O.P. No.2 CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF JUDGMENT:14.03.2023 1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 20th December, 2021 under Annexure-4 and the entire criminal proceeding in 1CC Case No.140 of 2021 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara on the grounds inter alia that the criminal action is unjustified and its continuation would be an abuse of process of law. 2. In fact, opposite party No.2 filed the complaint with regard to an incident dated 4th April, 2021 alleging that on the said date, the petitioners along with others forcibly entered into his house and committed mischief, during and in course of which, he was abused in filthy language and the household articles were damaged and forcibly took with them his daughter-in-law and granddaughter. With the above allegation, after the complaint was filed, the learned court below proceeded with it and took cognizance of the offences under Sections 457, 427, 294,323 and 506 read with 34 IPC against the petitioners vide Annexure-4 CRLMC No.1081 of 2022 Page 1 of 6 Snehalata Singh and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another which is under challenge along with the entire criminal proceeding.
Legal Reasoning
that if no prima facie case is made out or any cognizable offence is disclosed to have been committed on a bare reading of the FIR or the complaint, the criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is also held therein that a false and vexatious litigation may also have to be brought to an end by exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction in order to terminate malicious prosecution and for that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be invoked to do substantial justice. 7. In the present case, the Court is to examine, whether, the plea of the petitioners is acceptable. From the facts alleged in the FIR as at Annexure-2, the daughter of the petitioner No.1 was given in marriage to the family of the complainant opposite party No.2 and thereafter, her marital disturbance started which led to the lodging of a report and registration of Orient P.S. Case No.47 dated 8th April, 2021, wherein, opposite party No.2 has been arrayed as accused No.2. The details of the allegations by the daughter-in-law of opposite party No.2 have been described in Annexure-2 and manner in which she was ill-treated by him and her mother-in-law besides husband. 8. Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint is outrightly a false one and filed with a delay of six months and the circumstances under which it was filed indicates that the criminal action against the petitioners is manifestly intended with malafide and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra), the proceeding is required to be quashed in the interest of justice. 9. The learned court below recorded the initiated statement of opposite party No.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and held an CRLMC No.1081 of 2022 Page 3 of 6 Snehalata Singh and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another enquiry in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, considering the materials on record, proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioners and directed their appearance on a date fixed. 10. In Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra), the Supreme Court laid down the principles for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the matters relating to quashing of the criminal proceedings. It has been held therein that apart from other grounds, if it is found that the prosecution is tainted with malafide or initiated in order to wreak vengeance or on account of personal grudge, in order to do complete justice, extra-ordinary jurisdiction may be exercised to quash the criminal proceeding. In the instant case, such a ground is raised by the petitioners alleging that a false complaint has been filed as a counterblast to the FIR under Annexure-2 and hence, it should be quashed. 11. Gone through the contents of the complaint as at Anenxure-3, from which, it is made to appear that the alleged occurrence took place on 4th April, 2021, whereas, the complaint was filed in October, 2021. As per the allegation of opposite party No.2, the petitioners arrived along with some hooligans abused him and damaged household articles and in absence of his son forcibly took daughter-in-law and granddaughter with them and on the same day, in the evening hour, an SI and constable of the local PS arrived and picked up and seized all the valuable items including gold ornaments. It is also alleged that in view of the mischief committed by the petitioners, opposite party No.2 and his family suffered loss to property and reputation. The daughter-in-law of opposite party No.2, on account of disturbance in her marital life, as it is made to suggest, was taken away by the petitioners on the date of alleged incident and thereafter, the so called dowry CRLMC No.1081 of 2022 Page 4 of 6 Snehalata Singh and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another articles detailed in Annexure-1 were seized by the local police which was apparently at her behest. It is alleged that the dowry articles have been illegally seized without the consent of opposite party No.2. If such a thing had happened during which the daughter-in-law and granddaughter were forcibly taken away and in course of events, the petitioners damaged some household articles, then what prevented opposite party No.2 from lodging a report or complaint immediately. If the local PS recovered and seized the dowry articles illegally which is suggested to be at the instance of his daughter-in-law, what course of action was followed by him and if opposite party No.2 submitted any complaint at the PS against the officials, who said to have committed the excess. It is claimed that after the alleged incident, the matter was reported at the PS. According to opposite party No.2, he also sent intimation to the SP on 21st September, 2021 which is again after more than five months from the date of the alleged incident. If opposite party No.2 and his family had any grievance or complaint against the petitioners with regard to the occurrence dated 4th April, 2021, no satisfactory explanation has been offered to explain the delay of nearly six months. It is made to appear that the families of both the sides are not pulling on well due to the marital discord between the son and daughter-in- law of opposite party No.2 which was followed by the incident during which petitioner No.1 and others arrived at the residence of in-laws of her daughter and took her with them. The alleged mischief if so committed by the petitioners during the incident dated 4th April, 2021 has not been promptly reported but with an excuse that the local police did not take any action filed the complaint after about six months. Considering the nature of dispute between the parties and having regard to the fact that and FIR was lodged under Annexure-1 alleging ill-treatment against CRLMC No.1081 of 2022 Page 5 of 6 Snehalata Singh and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another the in-laws, such filing of the complaint by opposite party No.2 clearly smacks malafide and therefore, this Court is of the view that the proceeding initiated against the petitioners, since appear to be maliciously initiated, it should be quashed exercising its inherent jurisdiction in order to do substantial justice as it squarely falls in one of the categories of the cases illustrated in Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra). 12. Accordingly, it is ordered. 13. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order of cognizance dated 20th December, 2021 under Annexure-4 and the criminal proceeding in connection with 1CC Case No.140 of 2021 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara is hereby quashed. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU CRLMC No.1081 of 2022 Page 6 of 6
Arguments
3. Heard Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint is outrightly false and filed in order to wreack vengeance and with considerable amount of delay which has not been satisfactorily explained. It is contended that the incident took place on 4th April, 2021, whereas, the complaint was filed in the month of October, 2021 nearly after six months which therefore smacks malafide and falsehood and such a course of action has been adopted by opposite party No.2 in order to retaliate and as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the daughter- in-law (daughter of petitioner No.1). In view of the above, according to Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners, the complaint should not be allowed to stand and hence, it ought to be quashed in the interest of justice as any such prosecution based on it would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint as at Annexure-3 shall have to be considered by the learned court below during trial and merely on account of delay, the complaint cannot be quashed. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State adopts the argument of learned counsel for opposite party No.2. 6. The law is well settled that if a criminal prosecution is an outcome of personal vendetta or maliciously initiated out of grudge, inherent jurisdiction may be exercised to quash it. The CRLMC No.1081 of 2022 Page 2 of 6 Snehalata Singh and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 held and observed