The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC NO.2357 OF 2023 (Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the Criminal Proceeding pending in the Court of J.M.F.C.(O), Bhubaneswar in C.M.C. No.155 of 2023) Rosalyn Behera … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and another … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.S.K.Baral, Advocate -versus- For Opp.Party No.1 : Mr.S.K.Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel For Opp.Party No.2 : Mr.D.Mohapatra, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 11.9.2023. CRLMC No.2357 of 2023 Page 1 of 11 Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner is one of the Respondents in C.M.C. No.155/2023 of the Court of learned J.M.F.C. (O), Bhubaneswar filed by the present Opposite Party No.2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Do0mestic Violence Act, 2005 (“PWDV Act”). In the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Petitioner prays for quashment of the said proceedings on the ground that no case is made out against her. 2. The facts, relevant only to decide the present application are that the aforementioned application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act was filed by the present Opposite Party No.2 as aggrieved person claiming reliefs under Sections 18,19,20 and 22 of the Act against the Petitioner and others. It is stated that the aggrieved person married Debadutta Behera on 8th February, 2013 as per Hindu customs and rituals and such marriage was duly consummated. No dowry was demanded by the husband and other in-laws. After such marriage however, the respondents demanded CRLMC No.2357 of 2023 Page 2 of 11 gold ornaments and other valuable articles worth Rs.10 lakhs which was fulfilled by the father of the aggrieved person. In spite of such fulfillment of the demand of dowry, the in-laws of the aggrieved person subjected her to verbal abuse on multiple grounds. It is also alleged that the husband of the aggrieved person was a drunkard and misbehaved with her time and again. Though such fact was brought to the knowledge of her in-laws, they did not do anything about it. Further, she was not even allowed to take her meal twice a day and was always forced to cook separately for herself. Subsequently, the aggrieved person became pregnant, but her pregnancy was aborted by her husband who administered certain medicines to her. Her health condition deteriorated because of such fact and continued so for a long time. She was admitted to a Clinic at Jajpur Town but neither Respondent No.1 (husband) nor his in-laws visited her at any point of time. Her husband consumed alcohol and demanded car and other property from her and also physically assaulted her. CRLMC No.2357 of 2023 Page 3 of 11 Further, the husband and in-laws have been threatening her and her family members over phone using different phone numbers. On such facts, more or less, the application under Section 12 of PWDV Act was filed. As required, a Domestic Incident Report was also submitted by the Protection Officer, Khordha. Considering the averments in the application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act and the Domestic Incident Report, the Court below issued summons to all the Respondents including the present Petitioner. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. S.K.Baral, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved person (Opposite Party No.2). 4. Referring to the averments made in the application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, Mr. Baral would argue that there is not a single specific allegation levelled against the present Petitioner, who happens to be the married sister-in-law of the CRLMC No.2357 of 2023 Page 4 of 11 aggrieved person who resides with her husband and family at Balasore. As such she never resided in any domestic relationship as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act nor lived in the said household within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Mr. Baral would therefore, argue that bereft of any specific allegation, the proceeding against the present Petitioner, if allowed to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the Court below has taken note of the averments which are supported by Domestic Incident Report and therefore, has rightly issued summons. 6. Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel, has raised several points to contend that the aggrieved person is supposed to plead only the relevant facts briefly, which would be proved at the time of trial. It is not necessary for her to spell out each and every incident of domestic violence in her application specifically. The fact that a CRLMC No.2357 of 2023 Page 5 of 11 Domestic Incident Report supporting her allegations has been submitted is, by itself sufficient to continue with the proceeding. 7. As has already been discussed, the aggrieved person has made several allegations in her application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act. Perusal of the application appended to the statutory Form-II filed under Rule 6(1) reveals that the same runs into as many as 20 paragraphs. The present Petitioner is Respondent No.5. Reference has been made to her along with other Respondents in some of the paragraphs, but they are absolutely general and omnibus in nature as nothing specific has been alleged as against Respondent No.5. For instance, in Paragraph-2, it is stated as under; “2. That at the time of marriage the Respondent No.1,2,3,4,5 did not ask for any dowry from the Aggrieved Person to show case that the Respondents are only interested in getting the Aggrieved person their daughter in law but the true colours of the Respondents got revealed right after the marriage when the Respondents demanded gold ornaments and other CRLMC No.2357 of 2023 Page 6 of 11 valuable items along with household articles worth Rs.10 lakhs. Finding no other way, the father of the aggrieved person fulfilled all the dowry demands of all the Respondents.” Similarly under paragraph-3, it is stated as under; “3. That even after getting all the dowry demands fulfilled the Respondents were not satisfied and started alleging the jewelries and household articles were of low quality and not up to their status and standard. The Respondent Nos.2,3,4 and 5 started taunting the aggrieved person every now and then amounting to verbal abuse. But during this time as the aggrieved person was newly married, she consoled herself and never objected to the pain by anything and bore all herself.” Again in paragraph-10, it is averred as under; “10. That the continuous violence and the Respondent No.1 had abuse by affected the Aggrieved persons so severely that on 13.2.2015 the aggrieved person fainted at her workplace and got admitted at Madhusudan Panda’s Clinic, Jajpur Town by the colleagues of the the doctor aggrieved person where washed the private part to clear the abortion leftover particles completely. During this entire period of time the Respondent No.2 nor the Respondent Nos.2,3,4,5 took care of the aggrieved person or even were sympathetic towards the aggrieved person. Just after the incident the Respondent No.1 went to CRLMC No.2357 of 2023 Page 7 of 11 Delhi leaving behind the aggrieved person alone at such a critical health condition is for which responsible.” Respondent No.1 In paragraph-13, it is stated as under; “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx The Respondent No.1 with the help of Respondent Nos.2,3,4 and 5 are also calling the aggrieved person and her family members using different phone numbers and threatening to kill them until and unless their dowry demands are fulfilled by the aggrieved person’s father.” 8. Viewed objectively, the entire allegations appear to be directed mainly against the husband (Respondent No.1). The other Respondents are generally alleged to have abetted/condoned the various acts committed by Respondent No.1 husband. Reference to the Domestic Incident Report reveals that the same is in the statutory form and the names of all Respondents have been indicated therein. Under Sl. No.4 the specific details of domestic violence has been stated as ‘assault by the husband of the aggrieved person using a liquor bottle and of his threat to kill her’. A specific date has been mentioned being 1st November, 2016. There is not CRLMC No.2357 of 2023 Page 8 of 11 a whisper as regards the other Respondents including the present Petitioner. Further, the claim that the Petitioner is a married lady residing in her matrimonial home at Balasore has not been specifically denied or disputed. 9. The facts being as narrated hereinbefore, it would be apposite to refer to the settled position of law. Reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyamlal Devda and others vs. Parimala; (2020) 78 OCR (SC)146; wherein it was held that before issuing notice the Court has to be prima facie satisfied that there have been instances of domestic violence. Further, taking note of the fact that several relatives had been impleaded as party without specific allegations against them of causing domestic violence, the Supreme Court deemed it proper to quash the proceedings against them. In a similar case, a single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Mohammad Maqeenuddin Ahmed and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.; 2007 CRI.L.J. CRLMC No.2357 of 2023 Page 9 of 11 3361 observing that no specific allegations were made against the other respondents in the body of the petition, held that it would be unnecessary to continue the proceedings against them and such continuance would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. This Court is in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court. 10. Thus, on a conspectus of the analysis of facts and law made hereinbefore, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of any specific allegations of domestic violence being attributed by the aggrieved person herself in her application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act as also by the Protection Officer in the Domestic Incident Report, the Court below committed manifest error in issuing summons to the Petitioner. The order issuing summons must, in the facts of the case be treated as being passed mechanically without application of judicial mind. The intendment of the statute is not to prosecute innocent CRLMC No.2357 of 2023 Page 10 of 11 persons, but only those against whom a definite and specific case has been raised. As already discussed, this Court has found absolutely no allegation to maintain the application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act against the present Petitioner. Continuance of the proceedings against her would therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 11. In the result, the CRLMC is allowed. The proceedings in C.M.C. No.155/2023 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C.(O), Bhubaneswar, in so far as it relates to the present Petitioner only are hereby quashed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the other Respondents. …………….…….……….. (Sashikanta Mishra) Ashok Kumar Behera Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Designation: A.R.-CUM-SR.SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2023 11:11:29 CRLMC No.2357 of 2023 Page 11 of 11