The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3446 of 2022 Lal Chand Sharma and others …. Petitioners Mr.Ramesh Agarwal, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.C.Das, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 22.02.2024 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the application filed by the Petitioners under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present CRLMC application has been filed by the Petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceeding arising out of Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.52 of 2022, dated 21.04.2022, which corresponds to C.T. Case No.2407 of 2022 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. 4. On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that the matter was heard by a coordinate Bench on 02.02.2023. Accordingly, notice was // 2 // issued to the Opposite Party No.2, the informant, by registered post with A.D. Since the notice could not be served, the coordinate Bench, by order dated 18.05.2023, directed the issuance of fresh notice to Opposite Party No.2 by utilising the unutilised copy already filed and in addition to that this Court also directed issuance of the notice by Dasti. Despite valid service of notice through Dasti as is evident from the Office note dated 22.11.2023 indicting that, there has been a valid service of the Dasti, the same further reveals that the notice has been received by Sangeeta Mandol claiming to be the mother of the Petitioner No.2. Despite such valid notice none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 on 23.11.2023, 17.01.2024, 07.02.2024 and on 15.02.2023. As such this Court has no other option, but to accept valid service of notice on Opposite Party No.2. Finally, the matter is being taken up today for consideration of the application filed by the Petitioner as stated hereinabove. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, referring to the F.I.R. under Annexure-1 to the application, submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant herself before the I.I.C., Mahila P.S. Bhubaneswar on 21.04.2022.The F.I.R. under Annexure-1 further reveals that the informant had married to one Ramesh Sharma at Gurgaon in a temple and thereafter they both came to Bhubaneswar and stayed at the parental house of the Oppose Party No.2. It has also been stated that after the ritual-marriage in the temple they prepared a Notary declaration in respect of the aforesaid marriage and further they have also applied before the Registrar- cum-Marriage Officer, Bhubaneswar for registration of their marriage by staying at Bhubaneswar in the house of Opposite Party No.2. The informant has further stated that after the marriage her husband, namely Ramesh Sharma, started torturing her physically // 3 // and mentally abusing her in filthy languages. Her husband also tried to extract money from her as has been alleged in the F.I.R. She has further stated that her husband used to beat her at night and threaten her. 6. With regard to the present Petitioners, the allegation in the F.I.R. reveals that the Petitioner Nos.1 & 2, who happen to be the parents of the abovenamed Ramesh Sharma, are aware of the developments and insisted that the husband of the Opposite Party No.2, who is also their son to do so over the phone. Similarly, allegations have been made against the Petitioner No.3-Praveen Kumar Sharma, who is the brother of the accused-husband in this matter. The informant has further alleged against her husband by saying that he used to extract money from the informant via her Google Pay account and on one such instance almost Rs.3,00,000/- has been taken by the accused Ramesh Sharma. Thereafter, the abovenamed accused continued to torture the informant and demanded a further sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. 7. Be that as it may, on a plain reading of the F.I.R. it appears that the allegations against the Petitioners are that they were talking over phone and they were instigating the Petitioners. However, it is a fact that they were staying at Delhi, while the informant was staying at Bhubaneswar. Moreover, there is no specific allegation with regard to the payment of money to the Petitioners. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on a plain reading of the F.I.R., even accepting the allegations made against the Petitioners to be true, no case is made out against the Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
under the alleged sections of the Indian Penal Code in the FIR. Therefore, it is contended that the F.I.R. against the Petitioners be quashed and the criminal proceeding initiated against them be // 4 // brought to an end immediately. 8. In course of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are old ailing persons and staying at Delhi. In the event the case against them is continued, they will be unnecessarily harassed since they will be required to come to Odisha from Delhi to attend the Court. It was also pointed out that as far as the Petitioner No.3 is concerned, he is serving elsewhere and is not staying at Bhubaneswar. Therefore, it would be also difficult on his part to come to Bhubaneswar to attend Court on every date. In such background, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in the event further continuance of the proceeding is not quashed, then immense prejudice would be caused to the Petitioners and they will be unnecessarily harassed in this process, especially when the ultimate probability of conviction of the Petitioners in the present case is very bleak. 9. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that the allegations made against the Petitioners are serious in nature. He further contended that in the meantime investigation has been concluded and a Charge Sheet has been filed implicating the Petitioners as accused persons in the abovenoted criminal proceeding. He further contended that considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the Petitioners were allowed to go on bail under section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Additional Standing Counsel further contended that at this stage it would not be proper to terminate the criminal proceeding as the trial is yet to commence and many witnesses are to be examined in this case. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the application filed by the Petitioners is thoroughly misconceived and accordingly the same is liable to be // 5 // dismissed.
Legal Reasoning
10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record and further on a close scrutiny of the allegations made in the F.I.R. which have been made by the informant herself, this Court, in this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding, is required to examine as to whether a case is made out against the Petitioners on the basis of the allegations made in the F.I.R. In such view of the matter, this Court relies on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it was held that the allegations made in the F.I.R., even if they are taken at their face value and accepted, do not constitute any offence, then the F.I.R. may be quashed. There is no quarrel with regard to the fact that the law laid down in the Bhajanlal’s case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been accepted widely and followed in many subsequent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High courts. Therefore, by applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Bhajanlal’s case, this Court is required to quash the F.I.R. in the present proceeding. Therefore, in the event this Court comes to a conclusion that on the basis of the allegations made in the present F.I.R. no case is made out against the Petitioners, then the F.I.R. is to be quashed by this Court to prevent the abuse of process of law. 11. By applying the aforesaid well-settled legal principle, this Court examined the F.I.R. lodged by the informant in this case which has been appended to the writ application as Annexure-1. On a perusal of the F.I.R. under Annexure-1 this Court observes that the Opposite Party No.2 has alleged that the Petitioners were staying at Delhi whereas the informant and accused Ramesh Sharma were // 6 // staying at Bhubaneswar where the entire occurrence, i.e. the mental torture and demand of money, took place. The only allegation against the Petitioners are that they were talking with the abovenamed Ramesh Sharma over telephone. On a careful analysis of the allegations made in the F.I.R in this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made against the Petitioners are not sufficient to make out a case against them under the alleged sections of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, this Court observes that there is a growing trend of implicating the in-laws in criminal cases where there is matrimonial dispute and difference of opinion between the husband and wife. Such fact of victimization of in-laws cannot be overlooked altogether and as such fact has been taken note of in several judgments of this Curt as well as the Supreme Court of India. 12. On a combined reading of the F.I.R., keeping in view the factual scenario of the present case and the fact that the Petitioners are in-laws of Opposite Party No.2, who are staying far away from the Petitioners and, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations made against them in the F.I.R., this Court holds that no offence is made out against the Petitioners under the alleged sections of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the F.I.R. under Annxure-1, so far as it relates to present Petitioners, is hereby quashed. 13. In the aforesaid analysis and finding the CRLMC stands allowed. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge RKS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 27-Feb-2024 12:17:16