1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C') has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of C.T.
Case No. 2869 of 2019 pending in the court of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 72 of 2019 under Sections
498A/323/506/354/34 IPC and all proceedings consequent thereto.
2. The allegations in the FIR are as summarised hereinbelow:
a) The complainant-victim Mrs. Jharana Behera, lodged a complaint on 01.07.2019 in the Mahila Police Station-Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda. The
content of the complaint as set out implicates the petitioner No.1 and his family including his father, mother, adopted brother, adopted brother’s
sister and adopted brother’s wife, for committing the offences punishable under 498A/323/506/354/34 of I.P.C.
b) According to the complainant, she had tied the nuptial knot with the petitioner No.1 on 16.01.2011. The petitioner No.1’s family was provided
with hefty amount of dowry which included Television, Washing Machine, Refrigerator etc. and cash amounting to Rs. 2,20,000. In the initial years of
marriage, the complainant was treated with disdain by her in-laws for more dowry. It has been further alleged that her refusal to buzz to their demand
led to regular physical and mental torture by her in-laws and constant intimidation.
c) The complainant has alleged that the adopted brother of the petitionerNo.1 namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tripathy tried to drag her saree attempting
to outrage her modesty. She has also alleged that the petitioner No.1 has kept unnatural sexual relationship with her.
d) Further, the petitioner No.1 and his family forced the complainant to worship his father who is a self-declared godman by drinking the water which
was used for washing by his feet and putting his urine in her eyes, on the refusal of which she was the receiving end of constant physical and mental
torture by the accused.
3. Mr.T.Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the petitioner No.1 and his family have no role in the alleged
commission of offences. The FIR filed by the complainant is misconceived, concocted and it does not attract any offences alleged against the
petitioners and it was filed only with vexatious and oblique motive. Further the allegations made in the FIR and Statements extracted under section 161
as well as section 164 of Cr. P.C. do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. In fact, the allegations in the FIR
do not constitute any cognizable offences and they have been made with an ulterior motive wreaking vengeance against the accused due to personal
grudge. The ambiguity and material infirmity of the allegations can be seen through the discrepancies in the prosecution case and the statement of
prosecution witnesses. Hence, the proceedings may be quashed under section 482 Cr. P. C as it is a clear abuse of the process of law.
4. Per Contra, Sri Anupam Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners. He further contended that the case in hand is hungry for a proper trial and nipping at the bud, at this stage, will lead to
miscarriage of justice.
5. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the case diary to go deeper into the case. While dealing with the case in hand, it is apt to
recall the illustrative categories as enunciated in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335, .w.r.t. Sec 482 of Cr.P.C., paragraph
102 of the said judgment which is as under:
“102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
6. In the present case there cannot be any dispute that there is no legal bar against continuance of the complaint. Nor can it be said that the allegations
in the complaint taken on its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute an offence. There are allegations of cruelty against the wife as
well as criminal intimidation apart from assault on women to outrage her modesty and voluntarily causing hurt. The petitioners’ main argument for
quashing the complaint is that the complaint is manifestly mala fide and aimed at wreaking of vengeance with a view to spite the accused due to
personal grudge.
7. In Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 238., wherein it was observed:
“It is well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence, does not become
vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first information or the complaint.â€
8. In Angad Paul And Ors. vs M.D. Jindal 122 (2005) DLT 44., the Delhi High Court held that:
“10. So far as mala fides are concerned the same become important only when the complaint is patently false so that the mala fides are also
manifest on the complaint itself….â€
9. In the present case, an ocular perusal of the FIR would show that the offences alleged are serious in nature and facts are elucidated in a detailed
manner such that it doesn’t reek of malafide. The court cannot say that malafide is conspicuously manifested on the complaint.
10. In Shiji @ Pappu & others vs. Radhika and another (2011) 10 SCC 705., the Apex court while dealing with S. 482 also held that:
“….The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so,
we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same
with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High
Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is
neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to
say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the
abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume
the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will
have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.â€
[emphasis supplied]
11. Upon a reading of the FIR and the charge sheet as a whole it is not possible to come to the conclusion that they do not make out even a prima
face case against the petitioners for the offences alleged in the instant case. While it is true that even the distant relatives of the husband have been
roped in, this must be viewed in the context of the fact that the extended family does live in villages in Odia households and the prevalent social milieu
in that setting does facilitate their constant interaction.
12. There are very specific allegations against each of the Petitioners who are arrayed as accused. It is not as if the allegations are casual and
sweeping against all the accused generally. It appears that offences under the Indian Penal Code, are definitely made out, which needs to be
determined in further prosecution. There are numerous other allegations as well in the charge sheet which are very detailed and need not be
reproduced here since the above extracts are sufficient to indicate that the allegations are specific and grave and not of a general nature. It is
imperative that this matter be investigated further and the petitioners need to face the rigour of trial in respect of the alleged offences to meet the ends
of justice.
13. This Court finds no ground to interfere under Section 482 Cr PC at this stage.
14. Considering the aforesaid discussion, submissions made and taking into account a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand,
this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition. Accordingly, the present petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the accused/petitioner
stands rejected. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points, already raised in this petition, at the time of framing of the charge,
which may be considered by the trial court concerned at the appropriate stage.
