Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1267 (ORI)

Bijaya Kumar Patra v. State Of Orissa

2017-11-06

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT S.K. Sahoo, J. - None appears either on behalf of the petitioners or or on behalf of the opposite party No.2. 2. The petitioners Bijaya Kumar Patra, Smt. Mangalabati Jamkiar, Manoj Kuma Jamkiar and Baby Jamkiar have challenged the impugned order dated 24.11.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar in I.C.C. Case No.55 of 2004 in taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A/506/34 of the India Penal Code and issuance of process against them. 3. The opposite party No.2 Pravasini Patra instituted the complaint petition against the petitioners and one Minu Patra alleging therein about the physical and mental torture to her in connection with demand of dowry. 4. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the complainant petition, recorded the initial statement of the complainant and conducted inquiry contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.PC. and witnesses were examined in the injury. After perusing the complainant petition, initial statement of the complainant and the statements of witnesses, the learned Magistrate has been pleased to pass the impugned order in taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further held that since the accused No.5 Minu Patra is not related to the husband of the complainant, therefore no process can be issued against her. 5. On perusal of the case records, it indicates that the petitioners faced trial in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bonal in G.R. Case No. 123 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the first information report which was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 Pravasini Patra The learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 08.12.2000 has been pleased to acquit all the accused persons. On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the occurrence in question took place on 19.09.2004 which is subsequent to the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned S.D.J.M Bonai in G.R Case No. 123 of 2000. 6. It is stated in the complaint petition that on 19.09.2004 at about 8.00 p.m., the petitioners came to the house of the complainant-opposite party No.2 by tax and discussed the status of the petitioner no.1 as an Accounts Officer in the Telecom Department under the Central Govt and stated that unless sufficient dowry in the shape of cash of Rs. 50.000/- (rupees fifty thousand) and a motor cycle are presented, the petitioner no. 50.000/- (rupees fifty thousand) and a motor cycle are presented, the petitioner no. 1 would not take the complainant to join his society. It is further stated in the complaint petition that when the complainant and her mother expressed their inabilities to give such dowry, the petitioners left the place without taking the complainant and threatened the complainant and her mother to kill at any time, if any legal action is taken against them. It is further stated that the petitioner No. 1 is in the habit of getting married to daughters of poor families and after enjoining them, kicks them out on the plea of dowry and gets married again. It is further stated in the complaint petition that after driving the complainant out, the petitioner No. 1 had married another lady. 7. Perused the complaint petition, the statements of Kuni Sahoo, the mother of the victim and Ranjan Behera, a neighbour of the victim lady recorded during inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 They have stated about the occurrence. On the available materials on record, I find that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners The cognizance taking Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance is only required to be prima facie satisfied that on the available materials on record, an offence has been committed. Mere acquittal in the earlier case of similar in nature cannot be a ground to quash the complaint case proceeding which was instituted on the basis of subsequent event. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuing process against the petitioners and therefore, I am not inclined to invoke my inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the CRLMC application being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.