The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC Nos.2880 & 2831 of 2021 CRLMC No.2880 of 2021 Nalin Mohan @ Mrutyunjaya Kumar and others …. Petitioners Mr. Chandra Madhab Singh, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. Pradip Kumar Rout, AGA, OP No.1 Mr. J. Sahu, Advocate for OP No.2 AND CRLMC No.2831 of 2021 Nagendra Kumar and Another Petitioners Mr. Chandra Madhab Singh, Advocate …. -Versus- State of Odisha and Another
Legal Reasoning
Prohibition Act was taken on the ground that no prima facie case is made out against them and hence, it is liable to be interferred with and quashed in the interest of justice. 3. The petitioners would contend that the allegations in the FIR and statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not make out a case for which the order of cognizance under Annexure-4 is not sustainable in law. It is further contended that no specific allegation with regard to dowry demand and ill- treatment meted out to opposite party No.2 is revealed from the FIR and the materials on record and therefore, the learned court below erred in passing the impugned order having resulted in miscarriage of justice. 4. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the allegations contained in the FIR and submits that it is primarily directed against the accused husband, who was in a live in relationship with another woman prior to his marriage, the fact which was later ascertained by opposite party No.2 when she stayed with the former and travelled to Goa and Mumbai. Under the above circumstances, according to Mr. Singh, furthermore, as there has been no specific allegations against each of the petitioners except the fact that they demanded money at the time of marriage and thereafter which is outrightly false and considering the reason behind the dispute between the parties, namely, the accused husband and opposite party No.2, the learned court below could not have taken cognizance of the Page 2 of 7 offences against the petitioners and hence, it is a fit case where inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to quash the criminal proceeding as a whole in order to do substantial justice. 5. Mr. Rout, learned AGA on the other hand contends that there is dowry demand by the petitioners and also the accused husband on account of which opposite party No.2 was subjected to ill- treatment which is clearly evident from the FIR and therefore, when they have been chargesheeted under the alleged offences, hence, therefore, rightly the learned court below proceeded to take cognizance of the offences against them later to the submission of chargesheet. Thus, as per the contention of Mr. Rout, learned AGA, the learned court below cannot be said to have faulted with for having passed the impugned order under Annexure-4 and therefore, it calls for no interference. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 adopts the line of argument of Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State ad submits that a prima facie is made out against all the petitioners if the FIR and other materials are gone into and hence, the both the petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine. 6. If the FIR read as a whole, it is made to appear that the accused husband of opposite party No.2 said to have had relationship with a woman and in that connection, there was disturbance in their marital life and in that regard, certain mischief and overt act was committed by the former. In fact, opposite party No.2 after marriage could learn about such relationship of her husband and it seems that due to the circumstances narrated, the situation did not improve, rather, deteriorated and worsened leading to the lodging of the report. The marriage between the accused husband and opposite party No.2 is said to have taken place in the year 2017 and as alleged, there was demand which was met and the additional demand could not be fulfilled. The Page 3 of 7 involvement of the sisters-in-law, parents-in-law and accused husband is alleged by opposite party No.2 with regard to the dowry demand in the year 2019 and the FIR was lodged and as it appears, it was only after no settlement could be reached at between the parties. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely roped in with the allegations of dowry demand when the crux of the dispute between opposite party No.2 and her husband is on account of marital discord between them which is clearly revealed from the FIR. Furthermore, the contention is that the allegation is omnibus in nature without any specific role alleged against the petitioners and when the main dispute relates to the extra-marital relationship of the accused husband so alleged by opposite party No.2, the criminal proceeding vis-à-vis the petitioners should not be allowed to continue and survive. 8. In fact, the Apex Court in a recent decision reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vrs. State of Bihar and Others while dealing with the quashment of FIR and considering the allegations to be general and omnibus made against the in-laws without any specific and distinct allegations held and observed that in such cases, interference with the criminal proceeding is warranted so as to do complete justice. In Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vrs. State of U.P. and Another (2010) 7SCC 667, some allegations were made against the sister- in-law in a similar case of dowry demand and ill-treatment and after considering it, the Apex Court concluded that the prosecution cannot be sustained. While referring to a decision in Ramesh Vrs. State of Tamilnadu (2005) 3 SCC 507, the Apex Court in the aforesaid case concluded that the allegations against the sister-in-law was on account of anxiety of the informant to Page 4 of 7 rope her in along with the husband’s other relatives and it was against a married sister of the husband, who was not living with the family of the informant and consequently quashed the criminal proceeding. Similarly, in G.V. Rao Vrs. L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 which has been referred to in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Apex Court quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute when all the in-law family members were involved and implicated. The Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra concluded that if there is casual reference against the in-laws without any active involvement alleged, the proceeding as against them should not be permitted and accordingly, in the aforesaid case, the prosecution against the in-laws was quashed. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra), the Apex Court also referred to Geeta Mehrotra case so also the decision of K. Subba Rao Vrs. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452 which is to the effect that the relatives of the husband should not be implicated merely on the strength of omnibus allegation unless specific instances of their involvement is alleged. 9. Being alive to above the legal position, the Court is to consider, if the petitioners are really responsible for the alleged ill- treatment. The petitioners have been chargesheeted for the alleged offences. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in CRLMC No.2880 of 2021 are the sisters-in-law, whereas, petitioner No.1 therein is the husband of petitioner No.2. The parents-in-law of the informant are the petitioners in CRLMC No.2831 of 2021. The marriage between the informant opposite party No.2 and her husband took place in 2017 and thereafter disturbance in their marital life started which has been described in the FIR and also revealed from the chargesheet. It is made to understand that certain demands were made to the informant’s family at the time of her marriage in 2017. However, after the alleged marriage, the Page 5 of 7 informant had been to Mumbai to stay with her husband and there she could realize that the latter being in a relationship with another lady, whom she named in the FIR. The subsequent events which unfolded after she having learnt about the alleged relationship of her husband have also been described in the FIR. 10. On a reading of the report lodged by opposite party No.2, it made to suggest that the matrimonial relationship between the parties was greatly affected by the infidelity of the accused husband. The allegation of demand is made against the family members particularly the parents-in-laws, brother-in-law (husband of sister’s husband) and one of the sisters-in-law to be precise. The Court finds that the allegations stand primarily directed against the said accused in-laws, who said to have made illegal demand of dowry. It is alleged by opposite party No.2 that one of the mediators had been paid cash of Rs.7.5 lac to meet such demand which was arranged under compulsion. The specific dates or instances of demand and as to who from the family of the in-laws was or were primarily instrumental are of course not described in the FIR. As to what was the additional demand which is alleged by opposite party No.2 is also not discernable from the chargesheet. But, on a wholesome reading of the chargesheet and materials, dowry related demand and ill-treatment is allegedly attributed to the named accused in-laws, whose joint role is claimed except one of the sister-in-laws. It is further made to suggest that the accused husband on account of his relationship with another woman and due to his conduct towards opposite party No.2, the situation took an ugly turn and worsened. Having regard to the chargesheet and allegations, the Court finds that the involvement of the named in-laws, such as, the parents and elder brother-in-law of the husband besides one of the sisters- in-law are alleged to have played some role in demanding dowry and not the sister-in-law (petitioner No.2 in CRLMC No.2880 of Page 6 of 7 2021). The allegation against the left out sister-in-law is not so distinct to show her participation. The instances have been described as to when the said in-laws demanded dowry and also the manner of mischief committed by the accused husband, the truthfulness or otherwise of which are to be tested on the floor of the court. 11. Accordingly, it is ordered. 12. In the result, the CRLMC No. 2880 of 2021 stands partly allowed vis-à-vis petitioner No.2 and dismissed against others, whereas, CRLMC No. 2831 of 2021 is dismissed. As a corollary, the order of cognizance under Annexure-4 and the criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No.904 of 2019 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda are hereby quashed with respect to CRLMC No.2880 of 2021 to the extent indicated herein above. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge U.K. Sahoo Page 7 of 7
Arguments
…. Opposite Parties Mr. Pradip Kumar Rout, AGA, OP No.1 Mr. J. Sahu, Advocate for OP No.2 CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF JUDGMENT:01.03.2023 1. Both the cases have been clubbed together for a common disposal. 2. The elder brother-in-law of the husband and sisters-in-law (in CRLMC No.2880 of 2021) and the parents-in-law (in CRLMC Page 1 of 7 No.2831 of 2021) of the informant, namely, opposite party No.2 have approached this Court challenging the order of cognizance under Annexure-4 and the criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No.904 of 2019 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda, whereby, cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 and 506 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry