Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1485 (ORI)

Purnima Sa v. State of Orissa

2017-12-19

B.K.NAYAK

body2017
JUDGMENT 19.12.2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.08.2006 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Padampur in Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2003 setting aside the order of cognizance of offence under Sections 494/109 of the I.P.C. against the present opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 3. The present petitioner filed a complaint case against opposite party nos. 2 to 6 and her husband namely, Tikelal Sa alleging commission of offence under Section 494/109 of the I.P.C. in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Sohela. While occurrence under Section 494 of the I.P.C. was alleged against her husband, against the others including the present opposite party nos. 2 and 3 the allegation was that they abetted the offence of bigamy by instigating her husband for the second marriage. To that respect, she made a clear allegation in paragraph-4 of the complaint petition that accused no. 7-Damodar Meher, who is opposite party no. 3 in the present proceeding, and accused no. 3 Sauri Charan Barik abetted the offence of bigamy by instigating the husband of the complainant bear a child to her husband. In the initial statement and the statement of witnesses recorded during inquiry, there is clear indication that the accused persons instigated the husband of the complainant to go for the second marriage. 4. Accordingly, the learned J.M.F.C., Sohela in I.C.C. Case No. 20 of 2003 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 494/109 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons. The accused persons, except the husband of the complainant, filed Criminal Revison No. 66 of 2003 in the Court of the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Padampur challenging the order of cognizance and by the impugned judgment, the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge while upholding the order of cognizance in respect of the other accused persons, set aside the same in respect of present opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the consistent statement and allegation in the complaint petition of the complainant and witnesses that opposite party; nos. 2 and 3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the consistent statement and allegation in the complaint petition of the complainant and witnesses that opposite party; nos. 2 and 3 instigated the husband of the complainant to go for second marriage and accordingly he went through the second marriage, prima facie offence under Sections 494/109 of I.P.C. is made out against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and that the revisional Court has not carefully perused the materials in the complaint case and simply stated that one of them only scribed the deed of marriage. 6. The learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3, on the other hand submits that though there is some allegation that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 instigated the husband of the complainant for going through the second marriage, no specific time and manner of instigation has been stated. 7. The detailed particulars with regard to the instigation may be given by the prosecution witnesses at the time of trial, reliability of which shall be assessed by the trial Court. But for the purpose of taking cognizance on the basis of establishment of a prima facie case, mere allegation supported by statements of witnesses during inquiry about such instigation is enough. 8. Therefore, I am of the view the revisional Court has gone wrong in setting aside the order of cognizance passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Sohela in respect of opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Accordingly, the revisional order is set aside and the order of cognizance passed in the complaint case is restored. The learned J.M.F.C., Sohela is directed to dispose of I.C.C. Case No. 20 of 2003 expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. CRLMC disposed of.