Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 76 (ORI)

Priti Rekha Mohalik v. State of Orissa

2018-01-15

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the opp. party no.2. 2. The petitioner no.1 is the wife and the petitioner no.2 is the brother-in-law (brother of petitioner no.1) of the opp. party no.2 respectively. 3. The petitioners Smt. Priti Rekha Mohalik and Ranjit Kumar Mohalik in this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. have challenged the impugned order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Basudevpur in I.C.C. Case No. 53 of 2005 in taking cognizance of offences punishable under sections 323/294/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against them. 4. It appears that the opp. party No.2 filed a complaint petition in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Basudevpur which was registered as I.C.C. Case No.53 of 2005 against four accused persons including the two petitioners and also against Raghunath Mohalik and Satyabhama Mohalik who were his father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opp. party no.2 respectively. The complaint petition was forwarded to the Inspector in charge of Basudevpur police station for registration of the F.I.R. and investigation and accordingly, Basudevpur P.S. Case No.154 of 2005 was registered and on completion of investigation, final report was submitted. After receipt of the final report, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the complaint petition, recorded the statement of the complainant and on being satisfied regarding availability of prima facie case under sections 323, 294, 379, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, took cognizance of such offences and issued process against them. So far as the co-accused Raghunath Mohalik and Satyabhama Mohalik are concerned, the learned Magistrate did not find any prima facie case and accordingly, he dismissed the complaint petition under section 203 Cr.P.C. in respect of those two persons. 5. It appears that there was matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no.1 and the opp. party no.2 and the petitioner no.1 is a government employee and she was working as a Junior Agriculture Officer in the office of Soil Testing Laboratory at Balia, Balasore and since opp. 5. It appears that there was matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no.1 and the opp. party no.2 and the petitioner no.1 is a government employee and she was working as a Junior Agriculture Officer in the office of Soil Testing Laboratory at Balia, Balasore and since opp. party no.2 subjected her to torture in connection with demand of dowry, she lodged an F.I.R. before the Inspector in charge of Balasore police station, on the basis of which Balasore Town P.S. Case No. 244 of 2004 was registered on 30.08.2004 under sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in connection with the said case, the opp. party no.2 was taken into custody. It is stated that just as a counter blast to the said case, a false complaint petition was foisted against the petitioners. 6. It further appears from the record that the opp. party no.2 filed a petition for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Balasore against the petitioner no.1 which was registered as C.S. (MAT) No.75/2005-I and the learned Civil Judge has been pleased to dissolve the marriage between the parties and passed decree of divorce vide judgment and order dated 01.09.2007. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the opp. party no.2, it appears that in the background of the matrimonial dispute between the parties and after institution of the first information report by the petitioner no.1 against the opp. party no.2, the complaint petition has been instituted by the opp. party no.2 against the petitioners. The complaint petition was forwarded to police for investigation and final report was submitted and in the meantime, the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by decree of divorce. 8. party no.2, the complaint petition has been instituted by the opp. party no.2 against the petitioners. The complaint petition was forwarded to police for investigation and final report was submitted and in the meantime, the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by decree of divorce. 8. Considering the background of the case and taking note of the averments made in the complaint petition as well as statement of the complainant, I am of the view that continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would be an abuse of process and therefore, I am inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioners in this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Basudevpur in I.C.C. Case No. 53 of 2005 and the entire criminal proceeding in the said case. 9. Accordingly, the CRLMC application is allowed.