Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1262 (ORI)

Pramila Acharya @ Lili v. State of Orissa

2017-11-06

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. None appears on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner Pramila Acharya @ Lili has filed this application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the impugned order dated 20.04.2005 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack in G.R. Case No.568 of 2004 in taking cognizance of the offences under sections 493/417/313/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against him. The said case arises out of Kishore Nagar P.S. Case No.36 of 2004. 2. The first information report was lodged by the victim lady herself wherein she alleged that the co-villager Mahindra Biswal gave assurance of marriage to her and kept physical relationship for which she became pregnant and when she conceived for about seven months, the said co-accused Mahindra Biswal brought her to Cuttack in the pretext of registration of marriage but took her to Jagannath Seva Sadan which is situated at Nahabhanga, Biribati and there he compelled the victim lady to abort her pregnancy and when the victim lady objected, the accused Mahindra Biswal tried to convince her that his family members would not accept her in such state and she would be blamed in the neighbourhood and after the pregnancy is aborted, he would marry her and take her to his house. In spite of such assurance given by the accused Mahindra Biswal, since the victim lady did not agree to terminate her pregnancy, she was threatened and ultimately her pregnancy was terminated in Jagannath Seva Sadan and the accused Mahindra Biswal left that place and the staff of the Seva Sadan asked her to leave the place and accordingly, she came back and disclosed the matter to her family members and the gentlemen of the village tried to amicably settle the matter but the accused Mahindra Biswal did not agree to marry the victim lady and ultimately the first information report was lodged. 3. Learned counsel for the State has produced the case diary and he placed the first information report and the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim lady as well as the charge sheet. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the State has produced the case diary and he placed the first information report and the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim lady as well as the charge sheet. 4. On perusal of the materials available on record, it prima facie reveals that the petitioner was serving in Jagannath Seva Sadan, Nahabhanga, Biribati and the role attributed to her is that when the doctor terminated the pregnancy of the victim lady without her consent, she assisted the doctor and after termination of pregnancy, both of them threatened the victim to leave the place or else to face dire consequence. Even though charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, inter alia, for offences under sections 493 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code, I find no prima facie materials to attract the ingredients of such offences. On the other hand, there are prima facie materials to attract the ingredients of offences under sections 313/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 5. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.04.2005 relating taking of cognizance and issuance of process against the petitioner for the offences under sections 419 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, stands quashed. So far as taking cognizance and issuance of process for the other offences i.e. sections 313 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the same stands confirmed. Accordingly, the CRLMC application is allowed in part.