Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 786 (ORI)

Badal Barik v. State of Orissa

2007-10-09

M.M.DAS

body2007
ORDER M. M. DAS, J. — This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2. An information was lodged by one Bidyadhar Barik in the Korai Police Station on 19.6.2007, inter alia, stating that the daughter of the informant got married to the petitioner in the year 2003 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, the informant gave the couple a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash, gold ornaments and some house hold articles. But that was not in compliance with the demand of groom’s family. A son was born out of the wedlock. After the birth of the child, the daugh¬ter of the informant suffered from T.B. She was left in the informant’s house and the informant was getting her treated and giving her medicine as advised by the doctor. On 18.6.2007, the daughter of the informant while ill, expired. 3. The informant in the F.I.R. made a prayer to the Offi¬cer-in-Charge of the Police Station to hand over the dead body of his daughter to him for cremation. No doubt, the informant has stated that after marriage, the in-laws’ family were ill treating her daughter. However, there is no allegation of demand for any dowry or torture on account of demand of dowry. It is the admitted case of the informant that his daughter expired while suffering from T.B. 4. This Court, on a bare reading of the F.I.R., finds no cognizable offence or for that matter, no offence whatsoever, has been made out against the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased. It is strange that on receiving the F.I.R., the police registered the same as Korai P.S. Case No.117 (12) dated 19.6.2007 for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. On such a case being registered, the petitioner apprehending arrest has approached this Court in the present application for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. The death of the deceased being a natural one, question of commission of any offence under Section 304-B IPC does not arise. On such a case being registered, the petitioner apprehending arrest has approached this Court in the present application for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. The death of the deceased being a natural one, question of commission of any offence under Section 304-B IPC does not arise. There being absolutely no allegation with regard to the demand of dowry or torture, when the father of the deceased admits that after birth of the son, the deceased started suffer¬ing from T.B. and he was getting her treated, this Court is unable to find any reason as to why the police registered the case under the aforementioned Sections of the Indian Penal Code and the D.P. Act. 6. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal procedure lays down the provisions with regard to information to the police and their powers to investigate. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. provides that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, the same shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and shall be read over to the informant and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it and the sub¬stance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in the prescribed form. It also provides that a copy of such information shall be given forthwith free of cost to the informant. 7. Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. prescribes that on receipt of such information, if the police has reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, he shall forthwith send the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person or depute one of his subordinate officers in accordance with law to proceed to the spot and investigate. 8. With regard to non-cognizable offence, Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. prescribes that when such information regarding commission of a non-cognizable offence is given to an Officer in-charge of a police station, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in the prescribed form and no police officer shall inves¬tigate a non-cognizable case without an order of a competent Magistrate. 9. 9. This Court, in order to appreciate the peculiar facts of the case that even though the F.I.R. does not disclose a cognizable offence, the same has been registered for alleged commission of offences as stated above and the police has taken up investigation and upon finding that no offence has been al¬leged in the F.I.R., is of the view that the act of the concerned police officer discloses a total irresponsible manner in discharging his duties, which is contrary to the prescribed procedure under the Code as well as his negligence in discharging such duties. It is a common knowledge that backlog of cases in the docket of the Magistrate are being unable to be cleared and repeatedly this fact with regard to pendency of old cases and delay in disposal of cases is being highlighted by the media. The present case is an example where such frivolous litigations are being initiated without any cause and thereby consuming the time of the Courts and relegating the genuine cases from being dis¬posed of. It is, therefore, made clear that whenever, an F.I.R. is lodged before the O.I.C. of a police station, such officer should be careful enough to be prima facie satisfied that there is disclosure of a cognizable offence having been committed or he suspects that such an offence has been committed, then only, he is to register the F.I.R. and take up investigation as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. In the facts of this case, this Court is compelled to examine as to whether the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash the proceeding. 11. It is naive to state that the Supreme Court in a pleth¬ora of cases has held that the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide and, therefore, requires self-restraint and should be exercised in exceptional cases when the conditions of the said Section are fulfilled. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows :- “482. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows :- “482. Saving of inherent power of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 12. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & another, AIR 2006 S.C. 2872 , the Supreme Court while examining the scope of Section 482 of the Code laid down the ratio that the Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exer¬cised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and (iii) to other¬wise secure the ends of justice. While laying down the above principles, the Supreme Court has also held that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legisla¬tive enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. The Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law, which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. The Supreme Court has further held that inherent powers are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of admin¬istration of justice on the principle “quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest” (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). 13. In the facts of the present case, this Court finds that by registering the F.I.R., which does not disclose any offence, there has been abuse of the process of the Court and in order to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash the F.I.R. and the investigation thereon, thereby nipping a wrong at its bud so as to prevent a frivolous litigation entering into the precinct of the Court. 14. 14. In the above circumstances, this Court, therefore, quashes the F.I.R., which has been registered as Korai P.S. Case No.117 (12) of 2007 and the entire investigation done thereon. Consequently, the G.R. Case No.389 of 2007, which has been regis¬tered, arising out of said Korai P.S. Case No.117 (12) of 2007 is also quashed and the petitioner is not liable to be arrested/shall not be arrested in connection with the aforesaid case, which stands quashed. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. BLAPL disposed of.