The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3277 of 2023 Raj Kishore Panda & others …. Petitioners Mr. B. Pujari, Advocate -versus- Mitrabhanu Mishra …. Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 18.12.2023 09. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the State. 2. By means of the present application, the Petitioners seek the indulgence of this Court praying to quash the order of cognizance dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur in 1.C.C. Case No. 19 of 2022. 3. The background facts of the case are that the Complainant got married to Rajeswari Panda, the Opposite Party No.1 on 03.02.2017 allegedly without any dowry having been demanded or given. After the marriage, the couple lived a blissful life but allegedly due to the intervention of the parents of the bride who were always insisting her to be separated from the parents of the Petitioner for their financial benefits, the Opposite Party No.1 under their instigation and persuasion started pressurizing the Complainant to snap the relationship with his parents and to start living with her parents but Page 1 of 5 // 2 // the Complainant refused to do so as he is the only son of his parents and there is none to look after them. Resultantly, the Opposite Party-wife started misbehaving and insulting him and never behaved properly and remained aggressive using abusive language against the Complainant. She attended parties in the night club and returned to the home under inebriated condition and disturbed the peace and tranquility in the house and caused disturbance in the family life. Despite the protest being made from the side of the Complainant as her activities also disturbed the persons in the neighbourhood, the Opposite Party No.1 threatened to assault and on the relevant day while they returned to Odisha instead of going to the house of the Complainant which is the matrimonial house, on the insistence of the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant arrived in his in-laws house and pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, the Complainant was looted all his belongings and was abused in filthy languages besides being assaulted by fist and blows, slaps and kicks and forcibly by the members of the in-laws who also took away his money purse containing fifteen numbers of Rs.2,000/- currency notes amounting to Rs.30,000/- kept him under confinement in a room, his cell phone was snatched away as he tried to inform his parents and subsequently he was rescued by the police. On the basis of FIR lodged, in that respect the same was registered vide Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No. 287 of 2020. One R.N. Behera, S.I. of Police took up the investigation and submitted charge-sheet. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners that no case is made out against the Petitioners to initiate further the criminal proceeding there is also no material to initiate the criminal Page 2 of 5 // 3 // proceeding and in absence of any such formidable material, there is bleak chance of conviction and as such the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the State on the contrary submitted that the allegations against the Petitioners are apparent and the FIR story having been clear and candid in constituting the offence besides involving the Petitioners in the commission of crime thereof and there is nothing to interfere therewith. 6. In the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 269, the Apex Court have held as follows:- “Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgment of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations leveled in the complaint or charge sheet on the face of it do not constitute or Page 3 of 5 // 4 // disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. To exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint in its entirety will have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the High Court at that stage has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint. The truth or falsity of the allegations would not be gone into by the Court at this earliest stage. Whether or not the allegations in the complaint were true is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led at the trial. 7. It is only in cases when the allegations in the complaint do not make out any case against the accused nor do they disclose the ingredients of an offence alleged against the accused or the allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach to such a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised to quash the prosecution, is also the view in the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. (supra). 8. In the case in hand the narration in the Complaint is tell tale clear to deduce the involvement of the Petitioners besides the same Page 4 of 5 // 5 // constituting offence against the Petitioners. Every bit of the allegations narrated in the FIR discloses a case against the Petitioners constituting the offences alleged. Therefore, this court is not inclined to quash the order impugned. The CRLMC is dismissed being devoid of merit. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 19-Dec-2023 18:34:13 Page 5 of 5