Court: Orissa High Court
Bench: JUSTICE S.K. Sahoo
Maheswar Panda (Dr.) & Ors. Vs. State Of Orissa & Anr. On 23 April 2018
Law Point:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 4, 6A — Quashing of FIR — Cruelty — Dowry Demand — Matrimonial Dispute — Decree of divorce already passed since 2006 and dispute between parties has come to rest since long — OP 2 seems to be not interested with proceeding for which she did not appear in spite of receipt of notice on this Court — No useful purpose would be served in allowing proceeding to continue further — Rather it would amount to abuse of process of Court which would not be in the interests of any of the parties — Impugned order passed by SDJM in taking cognizance of offences under Sections 498A, 34, IPC set aside.
JUDGEMENT
This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C filed by the petitioners Dr. Maheswar Panda, Sailabala Panda and Sanjib Kumar Panda who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband of the informant-opposite party No. 2 Monalisa Panda @ Monalisa Dash with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No. 3190 of 2006 in taking cognizance of offences under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and issuance of process against them. The said case arises out of Khurda Mahila P.S. Case No. 131 of 2006.
2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. 1 Dr. Maheswar Panda is dead. Therefore, this application so far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, has become infructuous.
3. Notice was issued to opposite party No. 2 which is sufficient. None appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.
4. The opposite party No. 2 lodged the first information report on 9.8.2006 before the Inspector incharge of Khurda Mahila Police Station, on the basis of which the case was instituted under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Mr. B.S. Dasparida, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner No. 3 filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack which was registered as Civil Proceeding No. 728 of 2002 against the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 also filed C.P. No. 683 of 2002 against the petitioner No. 3 for similar relief. Since both the parties decided to live together and to lead conjugal life, vide order dated 25.7.2003, the civil proceeding filed by the petitioner No. 3 as well as by the opposite party No. 2 were disposed of and the opposite party No. 2 agreed to join the company of the petitioner No. 3 within seven days. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in spite of the order passed on 25.7.2003 in Civil Proceeding No. 728 of 2002, the opposite party No. 2 did not join the company of the petitioner No. 3 and therefore, the petitioner No. 3 was constrained to file a petition for divorce before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack which was registered in Civil Proceeding No. 485 of 2004. It is further contended that while the divorce proceeding was subjudiced, the first information report was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 9.8.2006 containing all false and fabricated allegations for which in Khurda Mahila P.S. Case No. 131 of 2006 was instituted on 9.8.2006. It is further contended that the divorce petition filed by the petitioner No. 3 was allowed vide judgment and order dated 6.5.2006 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack and the marriage between the petitioner No. 3 and opposite party No. 2 which was solemnized on 17.6.1998 was dissolved by a decree of divorce.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has annexed the orders passed in Civil Proceeding No. 728 of 2002 and Civil Proceeding No. 683 of 2002 as well as the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 485 of 2002. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the parties are living separately since 2001 and the divorce decree has already been passed in the year 2006 and there is no challenge to such divorce of decree and the matter has come to rest, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to continue particularly when the said proceeding was instituted while the divorce proceeding was subjudiced containing the allegations which are of the years 1998 to 2001.
7. Mr. Arupananda Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State has produced the case diary and placed the materials available on record.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 as available on record and the fact that the case arises out of a matrimonial dispute and decree of divorce has already been passed since 2006 and the dispute between the parties has come to the rest since long and the opposite party No. 2 seems to be not interested with the proceeding for which she did not appear in spite of receipt of the notice on this Court, therefore, I am of humble view that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to continue further and rather it would amount to abuse of process of the Court which would not be in the interests of any of the parties.
9. Therefore, invoking inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B.S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and Another, reported in I (2003) DMC 524 (SC)=II (2003) SLT 689=II (2003) CCR 57 (SC)=(2003) 25 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 99, I am inclined to accept the prayer made in the petition and direct the impugned order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No. 3190 of 2006 in taking cognizance of offences under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issuance of process against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 stands quashed.
Accordingly, CRL MC application is 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