The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC NO.2804 OF 2024 (Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in G.R. Case for quashing of proceeding No.190/2023 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh) Pintu Ray … Petitioner -versus- State of Orissa and another … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner: Mr.Soumya Ranjan Das, Advocate -versus- For Opp.Party No.1: Mr.R.B.Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel For Opp.Party No.2: None --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 28.1.2025. CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 1 of 11 Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner is the sole accused in G.R. Case No.190/2023 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh at Rourkela facing trial for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 493/417/506 of I.P.C. In the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., he seeks quashment of the aforesaid criminal proceedings. 2. The facts of the case are that on 01.12.2023, an F.I.R. was lodged by the victim (name withheld) before the I.I.C., Mahila P.S., Sector-3, Rourkela stating therein that she and the Petitioner accused had married in the Court on 13.1.2023 at Rourkela. It was further stated that she and the Petitioner had a relationship of more than 4 years. They had earlier married in Samaleswari Temple at Sector-5 on 14.4.2021 and were living as husband and wife. However, the Petitioner being instigated by his parents inflicted physical torture on her demanding Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry. CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 2 of 11 On such complaint being lodged, Rourkela Mahila P.S. Case No.2/2023 was registered under Sections 493/417/506 of I.P.C. and investigation was taken up. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Petitioner-accused for the aforementioned offences on 31.10.2023. The Petitioner had originally approached this Court in
Decision
CRLMC No.993/2023, which was disposed of by order dated 5.5.2023 directing him to surrender before the Court below and to move for bail. Accordingly, the Petitioner surrendered in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh on 16.5.2023 and was released on bail on the same day. 3. Heard Mr. S.R.Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner-accused and Mr. R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 4. Mr. Das would argue that when the admitted case of the victim is that she and the Petitioner had a love relationship for more than 4 years and were also married in the temple and Court, the F.I.R. allegations CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 3 of 11 can only be treated as exaggerated. He further submits that even otherwise, none of the offences as alleged are made out against the Petitioner. Mr. Das also refers to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to submit that the prosecution case as laid is not at all made out for which continuance of the case would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Mr. R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, argues that there is a clear allegation of demand of Rs.2,00,000/- by the Petitioner from the victim and of subjecting her to physical torture for such reason. Moreover, it is clear from the materials on record that the Petitioner is guilty of deceiving the victim that he had married her only with an intent to make an unlawful gain by utilizing her. 6. Before proceeding to examine the merits of the rival contentions noted above, this Court would like to keep in mind the principles for exercising inherent CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 4 of 11 power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at the outset. It is trite law that if the offences alleged are, on the face of it, not made out, continuance of the case would be an abuse of the process of Court and in such event, the High Court can exercise its inherent power to stop the proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the celebrated decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others; reported in 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 335, wherein certain guidelines were issued for exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below; “(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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 5 of 11 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 offence but cognizable 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 just prudent person can ever reach a 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 the and proceedings and/or where is a the specific provision concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; in the Code or of there continuance the proceeding criminal proceeding (7) where a is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or is maliciously where instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge”. CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 6 of 11 7. Coming to the facts of the present case, as already stated, as per the F.I.R. the Petitioner and the victim were in a love relationship for more than 4 years and had also married in a temple on 14.4.2021. They lived as husband and wife for the entire period and finally married in the Court at Rourkela on 13.1.2023. The victim nowhere alleged that the Petitioner had deceived her in the marriage or caused her to believe that she was married to him though in fact he had not. Section 493 of I.P.C. reads as follows; “493. Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.-Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 493 of I.P.C. are as follows; “(1)The accused practised deception on a woman; (2)The intention of the accused to practise deceit was to induce a woman (complainant) to believe that she was lawfully married to the accused; (3)There was cohabitation or sexual intercourse as a result of the deception.” CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 7 of 11 8. The victim being examined by the I.O. has stated more or less the same thing in the F.I.R. about the occurrence. This Court fails to understand as to how the offence under Section 493 of I.P.C is made out when the question of deception by the Petitioner is automatically nullified on the face of the admission by the victim herself that they had a consensual relationship that culminated in marriage in the temple as also in Court. So, the question of the petitioner deceiving the victim that he had lawfully married her though he had not, does not arise at all. 9. Coming to the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C., which is punishment for cheating as defined under Section 415 of I.P.C., it is the settled position of law that the following essential ingredients of cheating are required to be satisfied to bring home the offence. “(i) deception of any person; fraudulently or dishonestly (ii) whereby inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 8 of 11 (iii) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he was not so deceived; (iv) which act or omission is caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.” 10. Again, reading the F.I.R. or the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. does not at all indicate as to how or in what manner the accused deceived the victim either by any false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission. All that has been alleged is that the victim was subjected to physical torture along with the demand for Rs.2,00,000/- from her father. In the circumstances, the demand cannot be construed as cheating within the meaning of Section 415 of I.P.C. As such, the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. is also not made out. 11. From a bare reading of the F.I.R. and the statement of the victim there is no whisper of any threat being held out by the Petitioner save and except that there was a demand for Rs.2 lakhs. Though there CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 9 of 11 is a feeble allegation that the victim was subjected to physical torture yet, the details thereof have not been stated in the least. The F.I.R. also does not mention any injury having been sustained by the victim. 12. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis made hereinbefore, the only possibility that emerges on a reading of the F.I.R. and the charge sheet including the statement of the victim and other witnesses is that there was some discord and dissension between the petitioner and the victim, who are none other than husband and wife. There is a strong possibility that such marital discord was blown out of proportion probably at the heat of the moment. For such reason therefore, a definite criminal intention cannot be imputed to the Petitioner. Moreover, this is a case where, even if the prosecution case is accepted on its face value, the offences alleged are not made out at all in view of what has been narrated herein before. Thus, continuance of the proceedings would continuously be an abuse of the process of Court. CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 10 of 11 13. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the CRLMC is allowed. The proceedings in G.R. Case No.190/2023 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh are hereby quashed. …………….…….……….. (Sashikanta Mishra) Ashok Kumar Behera Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Jan-2025 12:18:20 CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 11 of 11