Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 116 (ORI)

Sk. Dilbar Ali v. State of Orissa

2014-02-13

S.C.PARIJA

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. PARIJA, J. : Sri B.B. Biswal and associates entered appearance for the complainant-opposite party No.2 and filed Vakalatnama along with an affidavit, which be kept on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party No.2. This application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in 1 C.C. No.224 of 2011, pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road, under Sections 498-A/354/506 Indian Penal Code. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant-opposite party No.2, who is the step-mother of the petitioner has filed a complaint petition in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road, in 1.C.C. No.226 of 2009 against the petitioner and his father Sk. Abdul Rouf on 02.09.2007, who married the petitioner’s son in accordance with the rites and customs of Muslim law. First wife of Sk. Abdul Rouf had expired and out of the first marriage, he has two sons and two daughters. The petitioner who is the eldest son of Sk. Abdul Rouf was settled at Hyderabad after marriage and the two daughters were also married and staying at their in-laws house. Sk. Abdul Rouf demanded dowry and accordingly gold ring, wrist watch and other house hold articles were given at the time of marriage. After marriage, Sk. Abdul Rouf demanded a motor cycle and when the father of the complainant expressed his inability to meet such demand, the opposite party No.2 was subjected to physical and mental torture. The petitioner also misbehaved the complainant and passed indecent remarks against her and compelling her to keep sexual relationship with him. The opposite party No.2 objected to the same and intimated her husband but he told her to oblige the son and further cautioned that if she discloses before anybody, she would be murdered. It is stated that the complainant brought this matter to the notice of the Commandant, 6th Battalion on 30.10.2009 by submitting written report that she was not properly treated when she was ill and petitioner tried to outrage her modesty during night hour on 09.11.2009 in the absence of her husband. But the opposite party No.2 protested him and drove him out of her bed room. But the opposite party No.2 protested him and drove him out of her bed room. As she was ill, the father of the opposite party No.2 took her to his house. After recovery from illness, they went to the Commandant to solve the dispute with Sk. Abdul Rouf, where she was informed that since her husband has not entered her name in the service book, no assistance could be provided to her. The opposite party No.2 and his father came to the quarter of her husband where they were assaulted by her husband and threatened of murdered, for which the complainant came back to her father’s place and stayed there. It is stated that during course of investigation, the statements of opposite party No.2, her father along with other witnesses were recorded. The Investigating Officer found that after marriage, the opposite party No.2 stayed with her husband Sk. Abdul Rouf in his Govt. quarter at 6th Battalion Campus, Cuttack and during such stay there was some marital dispute between the complainant and her husband, for which the husband tortured her physically and mentally. The allegation of torture as well as the demand of dowry by the petitioner could not be proved. The police after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet under Section 498-A against the husband and the petitioner was not charge-sheeted. Since no charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner in G.R. Case No.917 of 2009, the opposite party filed a protest petition before the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road, which was registered as 1 C.C. No.224 of 2011 reiterating the allegations, which has been alleged against the petitioner and his father in the earlier complaint petition i.e. 1 C.C. No.226 of 2009. Learned Magistrate recorded the initial statement of the complainant. The complainant also examined her father Sk. Idrish and another witness, namely, Gulam Daste Khan. After going through the statement of the complainant and the witness, the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 498-A/354/506 I.P.C. and directed issuance of summon against the accused petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the proceeding the matter has been amicably resolved between the petitioner and the complainant, who is his step-mother and an affidavit to that effect has been filed in Court today. It is further stated that at present the complainant is staying with his father’s in their house and leading a happy conjugal life. It is further stated that at present the complainant is staying with his father’s in their house and leading a happy conjugal life. It is accordingly submitted that in view of the compromise entered into between parties, no useful purpose would be served in allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner, especially when the chances of his ultimate conviction are bleak. In the affidavit filed by the complainant-opposite party No.2, it is stated that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant has been amicably settled/resolved with the intervention of the relatives, friends and well-wishers and that she is staying with the petitioner and his father at their native place and leading a happy conjugal life. It is further stated in the said affidavit that in view of the compromise, he complainant does not want to proceed with the case any further. Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the affidavit of the complainant-opposite party No.2 and as the matter has been amicably settled/resolved between the parties, I find no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, especially when the chances of his ultimate conviction are bleak. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in 1 C. C. No.224 of 2011, pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road, under Sections 498-A/354/506 I.P.C. and all consequential criminal proceedings are hereby quashed. CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. CRLMC disposed of.