The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1823 of 2022 Amit Kumar Nayak Petitioner Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath, Advocate …. -Versus- State of Odisha and Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. Sangram Kishari Mishra, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF JUDGMENT:24.03.2023 1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of cognizance dated 1st November, 2021 passed in C.T. Case No.172 of 2022 by the learned J.M.F.C., Kesinga on the grounds inter alia that the same is not tenable in law and the proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance.
Facts
2. The petitioner’s wife lodged the FIR, as a result of which, Kesinga P.S. Case No.179 was registered under Sections 313, 341, 323, 294, 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC read with 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was submitted against the petitioner, whereupon, the learned court below took cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and summoned the petitioner. 3. On a reading of the FIR as at Annexure-2 series, it is made to understand that opposite party No.2 married the petitioner in CRLMC No.1823 of 2022 Page 1 of 4 Amit Kumar Nayak Vrs. State of Odisha & Another the year 2018 as per the Christian custom but thereafter she was ill-treated by the latter and in-laws and was subjected to mental and physical torture when additional demand was not fulfilled. The victim also alleged that the petitioner husband allegedly assaulted her during that time on 14th May, 2018. So, the allegation is directed against the in-laws as well as the husband of opposite party No.2.
Legal Reasoning
have taken cognizance of the offence since no prima facie case under Section 498-A IPC is made out against the petitioner. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that opposite party No.2 has been ill-treated by the in- laws as well as the petitioner which is revealed from the FIR and all other materials submitted along with chargesheet. It is CRLMC No.1823 of 2022 Page 2 of 4 Amit Kumar Nayak Vrs. State of Odisha & Another further submitted that the dowry demand is alleged by opposite party No.2 in the FIR and about being ill-treated by in-laws besides the petitioner, who suspected her character, hence, therefore, the learned court below did not commit any wrong or illegality in passing the order of cognizance vide Annexure-1. 8. Law is well settled that unless a strong case is made out for interference with respect to a criminal proceeding, inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised. In this regard, it would be profitable to refer the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others AIR 1992 SC 604,wherein, it has been held and observed that if no case is made out from the FIR or complaint; or no cognizable offence is shown to have been committed considering the facts alleged therein; or no prudent person would ever believe and accept the allegations to be truthful, the criminal proceeding may be quashed in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court. 9. The truthfulness or otherwise of the facts alleged in the FIR by opposite party No.2 is a matter to be gone into during enquiry and trial. Considering the FIR, it is made to realise that the petitioner and other in-laws made dowry demand and also ill-treated opposite party No.2. There is also allegation that the petitioner alleged opposite party No.2 of having extra-marital affair. Nevertheless, opposite party No.2 has made allegations against the petitioner and in-laws for dowry related ill- treatment after marriage. So therefore, it cannot be said that there is no case under Section 498-A IPC prima facie made out by looking at the FIR. As earlier mentioned, whether, the allegation of dowry torture by opposite party No.2 is true or CRLMC No.1823 of 2022 Page 3 of 4 Amit Kumar Nayak Vrs. State of Odisha & Another false is a different matter which to be examined during trial. It is alleged that opposite party No.2 lodged the FIR being revengeful. However, the Court does not find any specific reason to make believe the theory of false implication. There is no any evidence shown by the petitioner to justify the bad conduct or malafide intent of opposite party No.2. Why opposite party No.2 is to allege falsehood against the petitioner? Such a claim must be borne out of the materials or apparent on the face of record which is conspicuously absent in the case at hand. So, therefore, the Court is of the irresistible conclusion that the impugned order of cognizance dated 1st November, 2021 does not suffer from any serious infirmity as against the allegation of dowry demand which needs an adjudication during and in course of trial before the learned court below. 10. Accordingly, it is ordered.
Arguments
4. Heard Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State opposite party No.1. The informant opposite party No.2 did not respond to the notice despite valid service. 5. Gone through the contents of the FIR, statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. besides the chargesheet, copies of which are at Annexure-2 series. 6. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case is made out against the petitioner nor any cognizable offence is disclosed on a bare perusal of the materials on record rather opposite party No.2 lodged the FIR which is an act of vindictiveness and also tainted with malafide and moreover, she has been in an illicit relationship with another person. So far as the allegation of dowry demand is concerned, it is contended that the same is a falsehood and concocted story. According to Mr. Rath, the learned court below ought not to
Decision
11. In the result, the CRLMC stands dismissed. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU CRLMC No.1823 of 2022 Page 4 of 4