Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 498 (ORI)

Krushna Chandra Pradhan v. Ujala Palei

2011-09-19

I.MAHANTY

body2011
ORDER 19.09.2011 — Heard Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Nanda, learned counsel for the opposite party. In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought for quashing of the criminal proceeding in I.C.C. Case No.264 of 2009 pending against them in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh, inter alia, on two grounds; the first one is that Ujala Palei, the mother of the victim-Harada Pradhan was incompetent to lodge the complaint and the second ground is that the learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid complaint. Mr. Acharya at the outset submits that he does not want to press his first contention in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P. and another., (2011) 50 O.C.R. (S.C.)-1. Insofar as second contention is concerned, Ms. Nanda, learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on Section 182 (2) Cr.P.C. which is quoted herein below :- “182. Offences committed by letters, etc. Xxxxxxxxxx (2) Any offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495 of the Indian INDIAN PENAL CODE (45 of 1860) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage (or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence.)”. While placing reliance on the aforesaid provision of the Cr.P.C., she asserts that since the mother-complainant is permanently residing within the jurisdiction of the S.D.J.M., Nayagarh and her daughter Harada Pradhan though presently residing in a short stay home at Bhubaneswar where she is undergoing treatment for her psychological ailment, yet the permanent residence of her daughter who is a destitute, has to be held to be that of her parents and hence, the Court at Nayagarh has necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo enclosing thereto a copy of the alleged complaint petition and asserts that there is no statement made in the complaint petition that after commission of the alleged offence under Section 494 I.P.C., the complainant’s daughter had taken permanent shelter with her parents who permanently reside at Nayagarh. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo enclosing thereto a copy of the alleged complaint petition and asserts that there is no statement made in the complaint petition that after commission of the alleged offence under Section 494 I.P.C., the complainant’s daughter had taken permanent shelter with her parents who permanently reside at Nayagarh. Though, Harada Pradhan (daughter of the opposite party/complainant), the victim is presently residing at a short stay home at Bhubaneswar, the said address is to be treated only as a temporary address and her permanent address has to be accepted as that of her parents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that there is no legal impediment for the learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh in entertaining the complaint petition filed by the mother Ujala Palei on behalf of her daughter Harada Pradhan. Accordingly, the present CRLMC stands dismissed and all interim orders stand vacated. Misc. Case Nos.891 and 1561 of 2011 also stand disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. CRLMC dismissed.