The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3290 of 2023 Mohmad Arif & Others …. Petitioners Mr. A. Pradhan, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite parties Ms. S. Mohanty, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.1 Mr. R.K. Mallick, Advocate For O.P. No.2 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 12.09.2025 06. 1.
Facts
Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Rajgangpur in G.R. Case No.182 of 2023, in connection with P.S. Case No.120 of 2023. The learned court in the said order took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498(A)/354/323/341/506/34 of IPC implicating the Petitioners therein. 3. The background facts, as emerge from the record, are that Opposite Party No.2 lodged a complaint before Rajgangpur Police Station alleging that she had married Mohammad Taarique, son of Petitioner No.1, Mohammad Arif, on 02.01.2016 in accordance with Muslim Law. Prior to the marriage, her husband had assured her that she would be permitted to reside at Kalyan and continue her medical profession there. However, after the marriage, he resiled from the said assurance and insisted that she shift to the matrimonial home at Rajgangpur. Despite her efforts to cohabit with her husband, the relationship did not improve, compelling her to issue a legal notice seeking restitution of marital ties. Upon being called by her husband, she travelled to Rajgangpur and reached Rourkela on 28.06.2022 at about 8:30 p.m., but her husband did not come to receive her. Having waited till 11:00 p.m., she eventually took shelter at the residence of a friend of her husband and proceeded to the matrimonial home the next morning. At that time, she was allegedly obstructed at the entrance by Petitioner No.3 (her elder brother-in-law), who abused and physically pushed her out, thereby humiliating her. It is further alleged that Petitioners No.1 and 2 (her parents-in-law) abused her in obscene language. She thereupon called the police helpline, and upon intervention by her husband, she was shifted to a nearby hotel, where she stayed for several days without the company of her husband, before returning to Kalyan. She subsequently approached the Odisha State Commission for Women at Bhubaneswar. On the basis of her complaint, Rajgangpur P.S. registered Case No.120 of 2023 and, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the Petitioners under Sections 498-A, 354, 323, 341, 506, read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in law as the FIR as well as Page 2 of 6 the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not disclose any material to prima facie implicate the Petitioners in the alleged offences. It is contended that there are no specific allegations of cruelty against Opposite Party No.2 so as to attract the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. It is further argued that the learned court below, in a mechanical manner and without due application of mind, has taken cognizance of offences beyond the scope of the FIR and witness statements. In fact, no case is made out against Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, and even the allegations directed against Petitioner No.3 are vague and omnibus in nature. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein it was held that general and omnibus allegations cannot be the basis to prosecute relatives of the complainant, as such mechanical prosecution would unjustly compel them to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial. 5.
Legal Reasoning
required to see whether a prima facie case is made out, not to embark upon a meticulous evaluation of the evidence. Hence, the Petitioners’ prayer for quashing the proceedings is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the case record, more particularly the FIR and the charge-sheet, it is evident that certain omnibus allegations have been levelled against Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are the parents-in-law of the complainant. However, the allegations directed against Petitioner No.3, the brother-in-law, appear to be more specific in nature, inasmuch as it has been alleged that he obstructed Opposite Party No.2 from entering the matrimonial house, pushed her aside by touching her body, and further extended threats and abuses. 7. At this juncture, it is apposite to note the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao vs. State of Page 4 of 6 Telangana, reported in 2018 (14) SCC 452, wherein it was held as follows – “5. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of process of a Court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal and Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 551.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that though criminal proceedings are ordinarily not to be interfered with at the interlocutory stage, the Courts must remain vigilant to ensure that distant relatives are not roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations. The rationale is that while genuine accusations must proceed to trial, relatives who are implicated without specific role or act being attributed to them should not be compelled to face the ordeal of a criminal prosecution. Applying this principle to the case at hand, it is evident that the allegations against Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 fall within the category of vague and omnibus imputations, whereas the accusation against Petitioner No.3 discloses a distinct overt act, which prima facie connects him with the alleged offence. Page 5 of 6 9. Accordingly, the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Rajgangpur in G.R. Case No.182 of 2023, arising out of P.S. Case No.120 of 2023, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A/354/323/341/506/34 IPC and issuing process against Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, stands quashed. 10. However, having regard to the specific allegations against Petitioner No.3, the order taking cognizance and issuance of process against him is sustained, and the proceeding in G.R. Case No.182 of 2023 shall continue against him in accordance with law. 11. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Page 6 of 6 Sarbani Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Sep-2025 17:42:34
Arguments
Ms. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners. She contended that the FIR, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and other materials collected during investigation clearly disclose prima facie evidence connecting the Petitioners with the offences alleged. It is submitted that the allegations of Page 3 of 6 abuse, assault, and use of criminal force, as narrated by Opposite Party No.2, are corroborated by the sequence of events and supported by witness statements, which cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The learned court below, upon due consideration of the case record and the charge-sheet, has rightly taken cognizance of the offences. She further argued that the scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited, and at the stage of cognizance the Court is only