The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 1211 of 2022 Pradeep Kumar Das …. Petitioner Ms. Anwesha Mishra, Advocate On behalf of Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa & another …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
during investigation disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences, and the allegations are neither absurd nor inherently improbable. There is no abuse of the process of law demonstrated by the Petitioner. CRLMC No. 1211 of 2022 Page 4 of 5 7. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the impugned order of cognizance. The CRLMC stands dismissed. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 15-Jul-2025 16:52:34 CRLMC No. 1211 of 2022 Page 5 of 5
Arguments
Mr. R. B. Dash, ASC For O.P. No.1 Mr. R. N. Parija, Advocate For O.P. No.2 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 14.07.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. By means of this application, the Petitioners seeks to quash the order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the learned SDJM, Nilagiri in CT Case No.466 of 2020, wherein it took cognizance for the offences under Sections 498-A/294/307/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act implicating the Petitioner. 2. The background facts of the case are that the marriage of Opposite Party No.2 was solemnized with Petitioner No.1 on 02.07.2017. At the time of marriage, there was a demand for dowry from the mother-in-law, father-in-law, and two sisters-in-law of the bride, in the form of gold ornaments, cash, dress materials, and other articles. Accordingly, pursuant to the demand made by the bridegroom’s family, the father of Opposite Party No.2 deposited a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- towards the purchase of costly household CRLMC No. 1211 of 2022 Page 1 of 5 articles, in addition to providing gold ornaments. It was further demanded that a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- be paid, apart from meeting other marriage-related and miscellaneous expenses. In compliance with this demand, the father of Opposite Party No.2 transferred a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- to the account of the bridegroom’s side (Account No. 11642149462 maintained at the State Bank of India). On the date of marriage, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid out of the demanded Rs.15,00,000/-, along with Rs.2,00,000/- towards Barat expenses. Subsequently, after the marriage, an additional demand of Rs.5,00,000/- was made. Upon failure to meet this demand, Opposite Party No.2 was subjected to ill-treatment and torture by all the members of her in-laws’ family. The gold ornaments brought by the bride were retained by the in-laws and were not returned despite several requests. A further sum of Rs.30,000/- was also transferred to the account of the bridegroom’s father as part payment of the demand. Despite the above payments, Opposite Party No.2 was never treated properly and was assaulted on several occasions for non-fulfilment of the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Later, a demand for Rs.60,00,000/- was made towards the purchase of a flat in Bhubaneswar, and when the father of the bride declined on the ground of financial constraints, the physical torture continued. It is alleged that even an attempt was made on her life. Based on a written complaint lodged by Opposite Party No.2, the police registered the case and took up investigation. Upon completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted on 29.12.2021, pursuant to which the learned trial court took cognizance. CRLMC No. 1211 of 2022 Page 2 of 5 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner though submitted that the order of cognizance is not in accordance with law, there is no material to support her contention either argued or submitted in any form. The allegations appearing in the FIR has simply been denied by the Petitioner besides submitting the fact that the C.P. No.164 of 2022 filed by the Opposite Party No.2 whereupon the husband of the Petitioner moved for restitution of conjugal rights. These submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner has no bearing in respect to the order taking cognizance. 4. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 opposed the prayer for quashing of the cognizance order and submitted that the FIR discloses grave and specific allegations of dowry demand, physical and mental harassment, and even an attempt to cause death of the complainant. The counsel further submitted that the materials collected during investigation clearly establish a prima facie case against the accused persons, justifying the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate. Hence, it was prayed that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed as being devoid of merit. 5. In the context of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, has laid down the following guidelines:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do CRLMC No. 1211 of 2022 Page 3 of 5 not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” In view of the above decision, this Court finds that none of the proceeding 6. the conditions warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are satisfied in the present case. The FIR and the materials collected