Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 412 (ORI)

Chhalla Srinivas v. Challa Aruna

2003-06-20

L.MOHAPATRA

body2003
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 30th March, 1993 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur in I.C.C. No. 14 of 1993. 2. From the record it appears that the aforesaid complaint case was filed by the opposite party alleging therein that she had married accused No. 1 on 23.10.1988 in accordance with Hindu rites, customs and traditions. Her further allegation is that at the time of marriage, her parents had given gold ornaments and other articles as described in the complaint. One and half years after the marriage it is alleged that the husband-accused No.1 demanded dowry in terms of cash and gold and due to non-fulfilment of said dowry demand the complainant-opposite party No.1 was subjected to torture. The allegations with regard to demand of dowry and torture took place in between 1990-93. The complaint reveals that the occurrence took place on 24.1.1993. On the basis of such complaint, the learned Magistrate in the im¬pugned order took cognizance of the offence under Section 6-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 109 of the Penal Code against two accused persons namely, Challa Susila and Pregada Krishna Veni and also took cognizance of offence under Section 6-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the present petitioner. 3. Shri Dahl, the learned counsel appearing for the peti¬tioner submitted that on very similar allegations an F.I.R. was lodged in Visakhapatnam and after investigation final form was submitted by the Investigating Officer stating that the allega¬tions were false. Thereafter the opposite party filed a complaint in the Court of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam on the very same allegations where not only the present petitioner but also the other accused persons were tried. The learned Metro¬politan Magistrate acquitted the petitioner and other accused persons of the charge by judgment dated 9.7.1998. Shri Dhal submitted that having failed in her attempt in getting an order of conviction against the petitioner under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, on false allegations a fresh complaint has again been filed in Orissa in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur and, therefore, the order taking cognizance on the basis of the self-same allegations should be quashed. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party on the other hand, submitted that the complaint filed before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam was in respect of the offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code whereas the present complaint is under Section 6-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 109 of the Penal Code and, therefore, acquittal of the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint case is of no consequence and on the said basis, the present complaint cannot be quashed. 4. From Annexure-3, it appears that the opposite party No.1 had lodged a report in the III Town L. and O P.S.,Visakha¬patnam City alleging therein demand of dowry and torture for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry for the period prior to 24.10.92. After investigation, final report was submitted on 24.10.92 stating that the allegations made in the complaint were false. From Annexure-4, it appears that after such a report was submit¬ted by the Investigating Officer, a complaint was filed in the Court of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam making very same allegations about demand of dowry and torture. In the complaint filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, the allega¬tions of demand of dowry and torture relate to the period prior to 8.2.93. On consideration of evidence adduced before the Court, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the petitioner and other accused persons of the charge under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. So far as the present complaint is concerned, it relates to the period on and prior to 24.1.93 and the said period is covered under the complaint filed before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. On perusal of the allega¬tions made in both the complaint cases, I do not find any differ¬ence except that the complaint filed before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam was registered for commis¬sion of offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code and the present complaint has been filed for commission of offence under Section 6-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 109 of the Penal Code. Merely because cognizance has been taken by two Magistrates under two different provisions of law, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the allegations contained in the previous complaint are very much similar to the complaint in the present complaint. Merely because cognizance has been taken by two Magistrates under two different provisions of law, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the allegations contained in the previous complaint are very much similar to the complaint in the present complaint. Since the petitioner and other accused persons have already been tried and acquitted of the charge on those allegations in the Court of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, they cannot he tried for the self-same allegations at a subsequent stage by way of another complaint. Since the allega¬tions of demand of dowry and torture in both the complaint cases are covered within the same period, I am of the view that contin¬uance of the present complaint will amount to abuse of process of law. 5. I accordingly allow the application and quash I.C.C. No. 14 of 1993 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Application allowed.