The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4115 of 2023 Mrs. Sujata Jena, Advocate Bhaskar Chandra Muduli ..……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & another ..……. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Bijaya Kumar Ragada, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 06. 1.
Decision
ORDER 02.02.2024 The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of the F.I.R. vis-à-vis the charge under Section- 376(2)(n) IPC is concerned, which has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 as UPD Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.389 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.776 of 2023 for the offences under Sections- 376(2)(n)/ 294/ 323/506/34 IPC pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack. 2. The notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 by this Court on 29.01.2024. Despite sufficiency of notice, the opposite party no.2 chose not to appear before the Court. 2 3. Mrs. Sujata Jena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 06.07.2023, the wife of the petitioner had lodged a complaint before Kharavelanagar Police Station, Bhubaneswar against the opposite party no.2, inter alia, alleging that the opposite party no.2 came to her house, abused her and physically attacked her making false allegations. Thereafter on 08.07.2023, the opposite party no.2 had registered the F.I.R. in subject making various allegations attracting the offences under Sections-376(2)(n)/294/323/506/34 IPC. 4. Mrs. Jena, learned counsel also pointed out from the record that the opposite party No.2 had also filed another F.I.R. on 24.02.2016 against one Pradip Pal making almost similar allegation as has been made against her client in the instant case. In the said F.I.R., the accused namely Pradip Pal has been absconding. In the light of the conduct of the opposite party no.2, Mrs. Jena, learned counsel submits that the allegation made against the petitioner in this F.I.R. is completely false and motivated. 5. Notice was issued to the State by this Court on 29.01.2024 directing them to seek instruction and inform regarding the stage of the investigation. 6. Mr. Ragada, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite party no.1- State submits that in pursuance to the direction of this Court, he has sought instruction. As per the instruction dated 3 30.01.2024, the I.I.C., Sadar Police Station, Cuttack has informed that no case under Section-376(2)(n) IPC is made out against the present petitioner. The written instruction is taken on record. For ready reference, the relevant part of the instruction is reproduced as under: “During investigation it was ascertained that the victim Sabitri Pradhan (29) D/O Kalandi Pradhan of Dalachira Sahi, Badajharilo, PO- Sundargram, PS- Sadar, Dist. Cuttack UPD is the eldest daughter of Rupa Pradhan and Kalandi Pradhan among two daughters and one son. Bhaskar Muduli (51) S/O. Lt. Maheswar Muduli of Badajharilo is a married person having no issue. He is a driver in the Dept. of P.Wd and presently working at Satyanagar P.Wd office. Every Sundary when he comes to his village, he visits the house of victim. Gradually both of them developed love intimacy. As there is no issue of Bhaskar Muduli from his wife, he wanted to adopt the child of victim as his son and wanted to give his name. On 30.06.2023 Bhaskar Muduli had to the village and as per request of victim he took her along with her son and kept them in a rented house at Plot No.22/06 Housing Board Colony, Satyanagar, Kharvelanagar, Bhubaneswar. They lived there as husband and wife and kept physical relation with the victim with her consent. When the victim’s family members asked Bhaskar Muduli regarding whereabouts of victim, he first denied to have any knowledge. But latter he admitted to have brought her and asked them to come and to take back their daughter. On 05.06.2023 night victim went to the quarter of Bhaskar Chandra Muduli to divorce his first wife and to marry her. Later the family members of victim and the in-law members of Bhaskar Muduli reached there and there were hot arguments among them. Bhaskar Muduli intervened and brought back the victim to the rented house, abused the victim and threatened not to go again to the quarter. He promised the victim and her family members to marry her in the Court in the following morning. On 06.07.2023 as Bhaskar Muduli did not come to the rented house, Rajib Pradhan and her sister Gayatri Pradhan went to Kharvelanagar P.S. and reported the matter. Receiving call from police Bhaskar Chandra Muduli came to the rented house and asked the victim’s family members to first proceed to the High Court of Orissa long with the child of victim and told that he along with Sabitri Pradhan will proceed later on. So the family members of victim came to Cuttack. But Bhaskar Chandra Muduli did not turn up. There is no iota of evidence U/S 376(2)(n) IPC as there was consensual sex between the complt and accused Bhaskar Chandra 4 Muduli as per the statement of victim recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. There was voluntary agreement between them regarding their mutual desire to engage in sexual relations. Nobody could prove the allegation against F.I.R. named accused Sumitra Muduli W/o Bhaskar Muduli and others. Hence allegations against the wife and mother in law of accused could not be substantiated and super addition. It is found to be a true case U/S. 493/294/506 IPC against the accused Bhaskar Chandra Muduli.” 7. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the F.I.R. vis-à-vis the allegation under Section-376(2)(n) IPC alleged against the petitioner in connection with UPD Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.389 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.776 of 2023 being not made out as per the investigation of the police, the same is quashed, subject to the petitioner paying the cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) to the Orissa High Court Advocates’ Welfare Fund. 8. Mrs. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far as the other offences are concerned, since the investigation is going on, the petitioner would prefer to resort to the remedy available to her client under the law. 9. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 04-Feb-2024 13:19:52