Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK CRLMC No.2951 of 2017 In the matter of application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. --------------- Pravakar Nahak and another ..… Petitioners State of Orissa and another ….. Opp. Parties -Versus- For Petitioners : Mr. H.S. Mishra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K Pattnaik, A.G.A. Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Adv(O.P.No.2) P R E S E N T: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Date of hearing:20.03.2023, Date of judgment: 17.04.2023 G.SATAPATHY, J. The prayer of the Petitioners in this application U/S. 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the order passed on 06.05.2017 by learned S.D.J.M., Angul in G.R. Case No.1730 of 2016 taking cognizance of offences U/Ss. 498(A)/294/323/506/34 of IPC r/w Sec. 4 of D.P. Act and acquit them from all charges. // 2 // 2. The short facts involved in this case arise
Facts
out of the FIR No.145 of 2016 of Nalco Township P.S. registered on receipt of a complaint U/S. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. from the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Angul and the gist of allegations as set out in the complaint are that O.P.No.2 had got married to the son of the Petitioners as per Hindu Caste and Custom on 21.04.2015. At the time of marriage, dowry articles including golden ornaments, gifts and cash of Rs.2,000,00/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) were given to the bride and bridegroom, but being dissatisfied, the Petitioners and their son demanded additional cash of Rs. 10,000,00/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) at the time of marriage and started creating disturbance for non- compliance of the demand and the father of O.P.No.2 accordingly, paid Rs. 3,000,00/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) additionally to meet the said unlawful demand to complete the marriage, but the Petitioners and their son asked the father of O.P.No.2 to pay the rest // 3 // amount of Rs. 7,000,00/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) within a month. On completion of marriage, when O.P. No.2 went to her matrimonial home, she was received by her husband and the Petitioners with rancor and hostility and they abused her in filthy language and from the very beginning, she was not provided with adequate food and was also prevented from wearing dress materials and ornaments as well as prevented her from visiting her parental house. According to O.P. No.2, when she became pregnant, the accused persons provided her with some soft drinks mixed with white powder and the O.P.No.2 suffered miscarriage and she was also not being provided with adequate medical facility, however, for the better life of O.P. No.2, her parents paid the rest of the demanded amount of Rs. 7,000,00/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) to the accused persons within the month of January, 2016 and the husband of O.P. No.2 left her in parental home by assuring to take her back within 15 days, but he // 4 // did not take her back, and when O.P. No.2 approached her husband to take her back, he scolded in filthy language and they again demanded a new flat at Bhubaneswar within six months. On the above allegations amongst others, O.P.No.2 filed the complaint in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Angul resulting in the present case, in which on receipt of charge-sheet, the learned S.D.J.M., Angul took cognizance of offences indicated in the preceding paragraph by the impugned order. 3.
Legal Reasoning
materials on record disclose prima facie case against the Petitioners. Accordingly, Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Sr. Counsel prays to dismiss the CRLMC. 6. In essence the Petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance of offences on the ground that the allegations brought against them are omnibus and general in nature, but a perusal of the complaint/FIR by itself discloses about Petitioners and their son demanding a cash of Rs.10,000,00/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) as additional dowry at the time of marriage and it is further alleged in the complaint that the Petitioners refused to take the complainant to their home, unless their demand is complied with. Besides, there is allegation against the Petitioners in the complaint about subjecting the complainant to torture to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand of dowry. // 8 // 7. Interestingly, there are cases of over implication of in-laws in matrimonial dispute by way of omnibus allegation, but at the same time, there are genuine cases also. However, each and every case cannot be viewed in the same spectrum of over implication of in-laws since the legislature after taking note of the menace of dowry has enacted Sec. 498-A of IPC by way of amendment to prevent the greedy husband and the relatives of husband from coercing the wife to meet their unlawful demand of dowry. Torture or cruelty may be either physical or mental as contemplated in the explanation to Sec. 498-A of IPC. One thing must be understood in the context of torture that the intention of the offender is primarily to coerce the bride to meet the unlawful demand of dowry and if their exists any intention, even by way of mental act in the form of use of taunting words or abusing the sufferer to meet the unlawful demand of dowry may // 9 // constitute “torture” as contemplated in Sec. 498-A of IPC. 8. It is undoubtedly true that the inherent power U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. by itself makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution, but when the situation so demands, the same can be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice or to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. Normally more is the power greater is the circumspection before exercising it. Generally, the High Courts should not embark upon appreciation of evidence at the stage of quashing a proceeding and it is not in the domain of the Court to weigh the evidence or consider the same to be reliable or not, which is the function of the trial Court. The inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. At the same time, there cannot be any dispute that the Court at appropriate case may exercise the inherent power to quash the proceeding // 10 // such as, where the allegation made in the FIR or the complainant, 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 or where the allegation in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence. In the present case, the Petitioners had of course taken the plea of their over implication by way of general and omnibus allegation, but what constitute general and omnibus allegation has to be considered independently in each case by taking into consideration the allegation made against the accused persons in the context of dowry torture. 9. This Court is in no manner of about that while considering the question of quashing of a criminal proceeding, it would not be proper to appreciate by way of sifting the materials collected in the course of investigation including the statements recorded U/S. 161 Cr.P.C., which are purely meant for contradicting // 11 // the witnesses. In this regard, this Court is fortified with the decision of Apex Court in Rajeev Kourav Vrs. Baisahab and others; (2020)3 SCC 317, wherein a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court dealt with the question as to the matters that to be considered by the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings U/S. 482 Cr.P.C. and it was held therein that the statement of witnesses recorded U/S.161 Cr.P.C. being fully inadmissible in evidence could not be taken into consideration by the Court while adjudicating a petition filed U/S. 482 Cr.P.C. 10. In the aforesaid situation, when there appears prima facie allegation against the Petitioners, this Court does not consider it proper to quash the criminal proceeding against the Petitioners, more particularly on conspectus of record and materials collected by the Investigating Agency submitting charge-sheet against the Petitioners and others disclose prima facie allegations and the learned Court of // 12 // S.D.J.M., Angul having taken cognizance of offences, it cannot be considered at this stage that the implication of the Petitioners is wholly on the basis of omnibus and general allegation so as to quash the criminal proceedings against them. 11. In the result, the CRLMC sans any merit, stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance
Arguments
In assailing the impugned order, Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners are the parents-in-law of the Informant- cum-O.P.No.2 and there is absolutely no prima facie allegations made out against any of the Petitioners for commission of any offence. Mr. H.S. Mishra, by referring to the FIR and statement of witnesses, submits that all the allegation leveled against the Petitioners are omnibus in nature and the Petitioners being old parents- // 5 // in-law have become the victim of the torture of daughter-in-law and are suffering for the misuse of the offence of dowry torture. Mr. H.S. Mishra, further submits that had there been any truth in the allegation, the Informant or the witnesses could have specifically stated/alleged against the Petitioners, such as on what date and by what act, the Petitioners subjected the Informant to torture, but a careful glance of the materials placed on record would hardly reveal about any allegation against the Petitioners for commission of alleged offences. It is also submitted that the Informant has made some omnibus allegation, such as, the Petitioners did not provide adequate food or took care of her or did not provide medical treatment, but these facts hardly incriminate the Petitioners because there is neither any specific allegation against the Petitioners for subjecting O.P.No.2 to torture or cruelty nor was the omnibus allegation against the Petitioners brought with convincing supporting materials. In summing up his // 6 // argument, Mr. H.S. Mishra, prays to quash the impugned order and the criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioners. 4. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, learned AGA, however, strongly refutes the prayer of the Petitioners by inter-alia submitting that the O.P.No.2-cum-Informant has categorically alleged against the Petitioners for subjecting her to torture and cruelty for demand of dowry as well as the allegations on record disclose commission of offences by the Petitioners. Learned AGA, accordingly, prays to dismiss the CRLMC. 5. On the contrary, Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 by referring to the FIR and statement of witnesses, submits that the Informant has not only made specific allegation against the Petitioners, but also has precisely stated about the torture meted to her by the Petitioners. He by taking this Court through the FIR and statement of witnesses, // 7 // points out that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality by taking cognizance of offences since the
Decision
there is no order as to costs. JUDGE …………….………….. G.SATAPATHY, Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 17th April, 2023, Priyajit