Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 104 (ORI)

Asharam Patel v. State of Orissa

2013-04-11

B.K.NAYAK

body2013
ORDER 11.4.2013 : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State (Opposite party No. 1). Though this matter has been listed for 'Orders' on the question of stay, on consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is heard for final disposal. In this criminal revision the petitioners have challenged the order dated 8.1.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh in G.R.Case No. 659 of 2012 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 498-A/506/34, IPC against the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the parents-in-law of the informant and in the FIR, there are some vague and general allegations against them without attributing any specific role to them and such allegations relate to the period prior to 2009, although the FIR has been lodged in August, 2012. It is his submission that admittedly, the informant and her husband (co-accused) have left the house of the petitioners and have been staying separately in a rented house. Therefore, the cognizance of offence taken against the petitioners should be quashed. Leaned counsel for opposite party No. 2 (informant) on the other hand submits that there are allegations of cruelty against the petitioners and at the stage of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has to reach only a prima facie satisfaction about the commission of offence by the accused and not to scrutinize the evidence to find out whether it is sufficient for conviction. It is therefore, his submission that cognizance has been rightly taken. Having regard to the rival contentions, it is necessary to see the allegations made by opposite party No. 2 in the FIR against the petitioners. The FIR reveals that the marriage between the informant and the son of the petitioners was solemnized on 13.5.1999. It is alleged that the petitioners and husband of the informant were not happy with the articles given by the informant's father at the time of marriage and gradually they started ill-treating the informant saying that her father had not given anything towards dowry. It is also alleged that her husband continues to torture her mentally and physically at the instigation of the present petitioners. It is also alleged that her husband continues to torture her mentally and physically at the instigation of the present petitioners. It is also alleged that even after a son was born to her, the informant was ill-treated for which she lost her mental equilibrium and therefore, her mother took her to her house. After several days, the informant was cured and thereafter, the accused persons brought her back to the matrimonial home and again started ill-treating after some days. It is further alleged that on 3rd of March, 2012, her husband assaulted her without any rhyme or reason and the informant escaped from his clutches but her parents-in-law (present petitioners) refused to provide shelter and security to her. Although, her elder brother and others went to the petitioners and requested them to settle the matter amicably, the petitioners turned a deaf ear. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the apex Court reported in 2013 (1) CJD (SC) 25 (Chandralekha & others v. State of Rajasthan and another) where the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed a criminal proceeding initiated against the in-laws of the victim lady where the allegations against them were vague and extremely general in nature and no specific role was attributed to any of them and the FIR was lodged six years after the wife left the matrimonial home. Admittedly, the son of the petitioners has filed a civil proceeding before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela against the informant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In her written statement filed in the said proceeding, the informant had admitted that she and her husband after leaving the house of the petitioners have been staying in a rented house since 2009. However, it appears that the house of the petitioners and the rented house of the informant and her husband are located within one Municipal area. Apart from other allegations levelled against the petitioners about their ill-treatment to the informant prior to her shifting to the rented house, as has been seen earlier, there is allegation that in March, 2012, the informant having been assaulted by her husband left the rented house and requested the petitioners to provide her shelter but they refused to provide her shelter and even refused her brother and other gentries to get the matter settled amicably. The allegations as described above in the FIR cannot said to be totally vague and general in nature. In the circumstances, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners will have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Considering the allegations made against the petitioners, the order of cognizance dated 8.1.2013 passed on the basis of a prima facie case suffers from no infirmity. The Criminal Revision and Misc. Case No. 83 of 2013 stand dismissed. Revision dismissed.