The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 1700 of 2022 Chandan Kumar Bharati Petitioner Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate …. -Versus- State of Orissa and Another Opposite Parties …. Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Additional Standing Counsel Mr. Panchanan Panigrahi, Advocate for O.P. No.2 CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27.07.2023 1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order of cognizance dated 9th November, 2021 under Annexure-3 and also to quash the criminal proceeding in connection with GR Case No.550 of 2021 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C, Banarpal corresponding of Angul P.S Case No.275 dated 25th May, 2021 on the grounds stated therein. 2. Briefly stated, opposite party No.2 lodged an F.I.R alleging therein that she married to the petitioner in the year 2017 but thereafter, was subjected to physical assault and torture and was also threatened to be killed, for which, had to flee to her parental house on 14th April,2021. It is further alleged that the petitioner and his elder brother arrived at her parent’s house and abused and even assaulted her n a particular date. The details of the incident are described in the report, consequent upon which, Angul P.S Case No. 275 was registered under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC besides Section 25 Arms Act. Later thereto the chargesheet was submitted in 2021 on completion of investigation, whereupon, the learned court below CRLMC No. 1700 of 2022 Page 1 of 8 Chandan Kumar Bharati and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another took cognizance of the alleged offences vide Annexure-3. The said order under Annexure-3 as well as the entire of the proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.550 of 2021 is under challenge and sought to be quashed in exercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Legal Reasoning
whether from Annexure-2, a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner? According to Mr. Sahoo, learned Senior Advocate out rightly a false case has been foisted against the petitioner, which is conspicuously evident from the conduct of opposite party No.2. The marriage is also challenged by the petitioner denying any such marital tie up in 2017. Whether, considering the grounds of challenge and material facts brought to notice of this Court, any such case is made out for quashment of the criminal proceeding pending before the learned court below? 8. The Apex Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal (Supra) laid down the guidelines while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has been held therein that if after considering the FIR or complaint, as the case may be, besides the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence; or the allegations 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 to proceed against the accused; or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreacking vengeance on the accused, under such circumstances, inherent jurisdiction may be exercised. Precisely stated, the above are the categories of cases where extra- CRLMC No. 1700 of 2022 Page 5 of 8 Chandan Kumar Bharati and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another ordinary jurisdiction should be exercised and not otherwise. It is also well settled that jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and not in a routine manner. If disputed question of the facts is involved, which needs examination of the evidence, then also the Court should be loathe in interfering with the criminal action. If on a consideration of the FIR and other materials including the chargesheet, it is made to realize that the entire action is based on falsehood or with an oblique motive or bad intention in order to wreack vengeance, jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised. Keeping in view of the above settled position of law, the Court is to consider the plea of the petitioner to decide as to if any such ground is made out for quashing of the criminal proceeding in GR Case No.550 of 2021. 9. So far as the offences under Sections 294, 323 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C are concerned, it is in relation to the misconduct of the petitioner, which has been believed by the local police. The F.I.R. as at Annexure-1 suggests that opposite party No.2 was not properly treated by the petitioner after their marriage on 7th December, 2017 and an incident dated 14th April, 2021 is also alleged. The involvement of the other persons named in Annexure-1 was of course found to be not established since it was not supported by the witnesses present at the spot. In any case, the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner at the end. In other words, the allegation by opposite party No.2 was believed in so far as the petitioner is concerned which resulted in submission of Annexure-3. The truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, which is found to be established prima facie vide Annexure-2, is to be thrashed out by the learned court below. In other words, at this stage the Court cannot jump to any conclusion disbelieving the claim of opposite party No.2 when it again stands substantiated by Annexure-2. CRLMC No. 1700 of 2022 Page 6 of 8 Chandan Kumar Bharati and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another 10. The contention of Mr. Sahoo, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is that the petitioner did not marry opposite party No.2. The marriage is alleged and said to have taken in the year 2017. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that opposite party No.2 had a previous marriage and though there was a divorce obtained which is doubtful but she is residing with her former husband till date. Whether, there was marriage in 2017 or not and if opposite party No.2 had a divorce but still living with her former husband is a matter which is required to be examined during trial. If the order of the High Court of Jharkhand in Cr. M.P. Nos. 1539 and 1263 of 2022 is read, it is made to appear that the criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 147 of 2022 initiated at the instance of opposite party No.2 for an offence under Section 376 of I.P.C was quashed on the premise that the marriage between the parties was claimed. It does mean that on the premise of marriage between the petitioner and opposite party No.2, the criminal complaint was quashed. In that case, the challenge of the petitioner denying marriage with opposite party No.2 accepting the order of the High Court of Jharkhand may have to fall flat. Furthermore, the Court is not inclined to reach at any such conclusion with regard to the present case leaving it open for the learned court below to arrive at an independent decision in inquiry and trial. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that though the chargesheet under Annexure-2 is submitted against the petitioner but with regard to the truthfulness of the allegations of opposite party No.2, it should be left to be examined by the learned court below. The divorce or otherwise between the parties may even be a matter of defence which the petitioner is at liberty to raise before the learned court below. Taking into account, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and being alive to the settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra), the Court is of the CRLMC No. 1700 of 2022 Page 7 of 8 Chandan Kumar Bharati and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another humble view that the inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised to quash the criminal proceeding, more particularly when, certain disputed facts are involved. That apart, it cannot be confidently said that opposite party No.2 out of grudge or in order to wreack vengeance or to falsely frame the petitioner, lodged the F.I.R. Besides that, opposite party No.2 even moved the Family Court, Angul seeking maintenance from the petitioner. As against the above background, the Court finds it difficult to exercise inherent jurisdiction to terminate the criminal action set in motion at the behest of opposite party No.2. 11. Accordingly, it is ordered.
Arguments
3. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Mohapatra, learned ASC for the State and Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2. 4. Mr. Sahoo, learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioner is an official of a Public Sector Undertaking, namely, Eastern Coalfields Limited, which is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited and posted as a Deputy Manager at Godda, Jharkhand and he has been falsely framed by opposite party No.2. It is contended that no such incident dated 14th April, 2021 had taken place, since the petitioner was on duty and was at his work place at Godda, Jharkhand, which is far away from Angul. Furthermore, according to Mr. Sahoo, the allegation of torture, physical as well as mental, which is alleged by opposite party No.2 is a again falsehood and besides that, there is no evidence of marriage between the parties and that apart, opposite party No.2 has a son aged about 10 years old from her previous marriage. It is claimed that there is no trace of evidence with regard to marriage claimed by opposite party No.2 having taken place in the year 2017 and the incident in question was disbelieved in part as the presence of some of the persons accused was disbelieved and even found to be false. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also filed a complaint against opposite party No.2 and three others registered as Complaint Case No. 79 of 2018 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Godda, Jharkhand. It is contended that the allegations are out rightly false and the petitioner is not married to opposite party No.2, who also filed a proceeding under Section 125 CRLMC No. 1700 of 2022 Page 2 of 8 Chandan Kumar Bharati and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another Cr.P.C. pending in the file of the learned Judge, Family Court Angul in C.R.P No. 5 of 2022 but then, the local police submitted the chargesheet without proper investigation and thereupon, the learned court below took cognizance of the offences vide Annexure-3. It is further contended that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not fulfilled, so therefore, the entire of the proceeding is required to be quashed exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. keeping in view the settled legal position as enunciated by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned ASC for the State, however, submits that the grounds which have been raised by the petitioner are to be looked into by the learned court below during inquiry and trial, which are factual based and that apart, since the investigation is concluded with a finding that the petitioner has committed the mischief and subjected opposite party No.2 to cruelty, learned court below cannot, therefore, be said to have committed any illegality, while taking cognizance of the offences under Annexure-3. It is also submitted that the truthfulness or otherwise of the claim of marriage between the parties is a matter to be considered by the learned court below for a limited purpose to ascertain as to if an offence under section 498-A IPC is made out and since other offences have been alleged and prima facie proved and established with the submission of chargesheet, this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the impugned order under Annexure-3 and also the proceeding pending before the learned court below. 6. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 supported the contention of learned ASC for the State and submitted that the evidence gathered during and in course of CRLMC No. 1700 of 2022 Page 3 of 8 Chandan Kumar Bharati and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another investigation revealed the overt acts committed by the petitioner and therefore, rightly he has been chargesheeted for the alleged offences and the facts which have been put forth and the grounds upon which the challenge is made are to be examined by the learned court below and therefore at this stage, it would not be proper to intervene and quash the criminal proceeding, which has been pleaded for. In reply, Mr. Sahoo, learned Senior Advocate produced a copy of the order dated 7th February, 2023 passed in Cr.M.P. Nos. 1263 and 1539 of 2022 of the Jharkhand High Court to contend that a criminal case by opposite party No.2 in Complaint Case No. 147 of 2022 under Section 376 I.P.C and other allied offences was quashed therein and hence, considering the same and all such other facts pleaded, the proceeding in G.R. Case No.550 of 2021 should be brought to an end and terminated since the allegations are apparently found to be false. The settled principles of law of the Apex Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) are highlighted upon by Mr. Sahoo, learned Senior Advocate while seeking intervention of this Court against the aforesaid backdrop. 7. The F.I.R was lodged by opposite party No.2 and it was in the year 2021. As per the said report, opposite party No.2 claimed to have married the petitioner on 7th December, 2017. It was said to be a love marriage between the parties so revealed from the FIR, a copy of which is at Annexure-1. According to opposite party No.2, after the marriage, she lived with the petitioner at Godda, Jharkhand, however, after about a month, her ill-treatment started. According to opposite party No.2, as per the facts revealed from Annexure-1, she was mentally harassed and physically tortured by the petitioner, whereafter, had to leave for her parental house and then the alleged incident dated 14th April, 2021 took place, during and in course of which, was abused in the filthy language and also assaulted. The said allegations have CRLMC No. 1700 of 2022 Page 4 of 8 Chandan Kumar Bharati and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Another been enquired into by the local police leading to filing of Annexure-2. On perusal of Annexur-2, the Court finds that the involvement of other accused persons named in Annexure-1 could not be established and rather, it was held to be a super addition and hence, the same was filed against the petitioner only. As per Annexure-2, the petitioner is alleged of subjecting opposite party No.2 to mental cruelty and having abused the latter and administered threat to her. The learned court below considered Annexure-2 and connected materials and thereafter, proceeded to take cognizance of the offences vide Annexure-3. The question is,
Decision
12. In the result, the CRLMC stands dismissed. Balaram (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 28-Jul-2023 11:37:05 CRLMC No. 1700 of 2022 Page 8 of 8