Court: Orissa High Court
Bench: JUSTICE Dr. B.R. Sarangi
Braja Kishore Das & Ors. Vs. State Of Orissa On 02 August 2013
Law Point:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 4 — Cruelty — Dowry demand — Quashing of cognizance of offence — When main accused already acquitted in trial, continuance of criminal proceedings against in-laws, would be abuse of process of law especially when there is bleak possibility of conviction.
JUDGEMENT
1. The Order dated 24.12.1993 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Soro in G.R. Case No. 300 of 1992 taking cognizance of the offences under Section 498A and Section 4 of the D.P. Act in Annexure-2 is sought to be quashed in the present Crl.M.C.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in 1985 the daughter of the informant had married to accused Umesh Ch. Das. At the time of marriage the informant had given a cash of Rs. 5,000 8 Tolas of gold, etc., but could not comply with the demand of one Godrej Almirah, for which his daughter was subjected to ill-treatment by the Petitioners, who are her in-laws, On 30.5.1992 the informant had gone to his daughter’s house on the occasion of “Sabitri Amabasya” where he learnt that his daughter along with her baby aged about seven months have died. Later he came to know from the neighbours of the accused persons that they killed his daughter and the baby by pouring petrol. So, the informant reported the matter at Soro Police Station. Police conducted investigation and after completion of the same submitted charge-sheet against the Petitioners and one Umesh Ch. Das, the husband of the deceased under Sections 498A/304B of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned J.M.F.C., Soro took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A/304B/34 of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act against the Petitioners and the said Umesh Ch. Das by Order Dated 24.12.1993 in G.R.Case No. 300 of 1992.
3. Challenging the said order of cognizance Umesh Ch. Das, the husband of the deceased filed a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore; who on analysis of materials available on record, by Order dated 11.7.1995 set aside the order of cognizance so far as it relates to Section 304B of IPC. However, he confirmed the order of cognizance as regards cognizance under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act. The trial against the Petitioners and Umesh Ch. Das was split up by the learned JMFC, Soro vide Order dated 29.4.1999. Accordingly, learned JMFC framed charges against Umesh Ch. Das under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act. After charges were framed, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the trial. In the trial since the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the charges levelled against Umesh Ch. Das acquitted him of the charges vide Judgment dated 4.12.2001 endorsing the case as a mistake of fact. The main contention of the Petitioners, who are the in-laws is that because of the acquittal of Umesh Ch. Das, the husband of the deceased, who is alleged to be the main accused by revisional order clearly indicative/suggestive to make it evident that there is absolutely no material to make out an offence under Sections 498A/304B of the IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act against them. Therefore, the Petitioners seek for quashing of criminal proceeding against them.
4. Mr. D.P. Dhal, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner to substantiate this contention relied upon the Judgments reported in Namita Nayak @ Namita Kumari Nayak & Anr. v. State of Orissa, (2007) 37 OCR 150; Aditya Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, (2008) 41 OCR 233; Chirantan Sahu v. State of Orissa, (2011) 48 OCR 289 and Surendra Kumar @ Surendra Routray v. State of Orissa, 2011 (I) OLR 1052 and vehemently urged that since the main accused has already been acquitted by allowing trial, no useful purpose will be served to continue with the proceeding in respect of the Petitioners as it will amount to abuse of the process of Court.
5. Before going into the merits of the case, the law governing the field is to be examined. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Akhilesh Singh, reported in VII (2004) SLT 521=AIR 2005 SC 268, the Supreme Court has held that when the main accused has already been acquitted of the trial the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the other accused would be an abuse of the process of law, especially when there is bleak possibility of their conviction. In Kanhu Behera v. State of Orissa, 2005 (II) OLR 386, it has been held that quashing of cognizance is an inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and can be invoked to quash the order of cognizance involving non-compoundable offences where the principal accused has already been acquitted after a full-fledged trial and continuance of the criminal proceeding against the Petitioners would be undoubtedly abuse of the process of Court. In Santosh Kumar Maity v. State of Orissa, (2006) 35 OCR 151; Aditya Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa (supra), Chirantan Sahu v. State of Orissa (supra), the proceeding against the Petitioner who has been shown as absconder in the charge sheet was quashed since the son had faced trial and had been acquitted and therefore, it was held that no purpose exists for continuance of trial. Similar view has also been taken in Upendra Sahoo @ Upenda Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, (2006) 35 OCR 171, in which this Court has quashed the criminal proceeding. Further, in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others v. Sambajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others, AIR 1988 SC 709, the Apex Court has held that where in the opinion of the Court, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceeding to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration of the special facts of the case also quash the proceeding.
6. The Judgment in Surendra Kumar @ Surendra Routray (supra), the fact of which case is akin to the case in hand, where the offence alleged to have been committed is one under Sections 498A/304B/306/34 and 4 of the D.P. Act against all the accused persons including the in-laws and husband of the deceased Nandini. Against the husband, Narendra the case was split up and S.T. Case No. 46 of 2007 continued. Since he was acquitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur on 28.3.2008, in that case in-laws were before this Court and on considering the facts and circumstances of that case, this Court held that when the main accused has already been acquitted in the trial, continuance of the criminal proceedings against the in-laws, would be an abuse of the process of law especially when there is bleak possibility of any conviction.
7. Considering the aforesaid Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the law laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the considered view that the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present Petitioners, who are the in-laws of the deceased, would be an abuse of the process of law, especially when there is bleak possibility of any conviction and therefore, the ends of justice would be best served if the proceeding in the split up trial is quashed. Accordingly, the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 30.0 of 1992 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Soro is hereby quashed. The Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment