Court: Orissa High Court
Bench: JUSTICE M. Papanna
Nilu @ Pratap Kumar Mohaptra Vs. State Of Orissa On 16 January 2004
Law Point:
Sections 498-A, 304B, 201/34 — Quashing of Order : Cruelty, dowry death, disappearance of evidence, common intention : Appreciation of material on record : Involvement of petitioner in complicity of crime not reflected, neither his name finds place in FIR nor any of witnesses implicated him in his statement : Fit case to interfere with impugned order of cognizance.
JUDGEMENT
Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr. PC. petitioner makes this application seeking quashment of order of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No. 302 of 1993 taking cognizance of offence against him under Sections 498(A), 304-B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as his order dated 23.12.1998.
2. Balipatna police acted upon the FIR lodged by one Nirmal Charan Mohanty containing allegation that his sister Arnapurna who was married to one Dhileswar Mohapatra died out of torture made by her husband and parents-in-law. On completion of investigation police laid charge sheet against accused persons including the petitioner. The learned S.D.J.M. relying on the said charge sheet took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498(A), 304-B, 201 /34,1.P.C against the accused persons including the petitioner holding that a prima facie case lis made out against the accused persons under the above sections of law. Petitioner brought Criminal Misc. Case No. 2962 of 1998 before this Court challenging the above order. This Court while disposing of the said Misc. Case issued direction to the learned S.D.J.M. to hear the petitioner in the light of the contentions raised on his behalf before this Court and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, the present petitioner made an application to the learned S.D.J.M. for quashing cognizance order as aforesaid. But the learned S.D.J.M. rejected the said application holding the same to be devoid of merit. It is against that order, the present application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed before this Court.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.C. Panigrahi has contended that the order of cognizance passed by the learned S.D.J.M. is not only illegal but also an abuse of process of Court. His specific contention is that there is not an iota of evidence against the present petitioner. Moreover, the case against other accused persons in S.T. Case No. 84 of 1998 was tried and disposed of ending in acquittal of all the accused persons except Dhileswar, who is no other than the husband of the victim. He has drawn my attention to the statement of witnesses under Section 162, Cr. P.C. That apart, he has drawn my attention to the copies of the deposition of witnesses along with copy of judgment in the said case. I have gone through the FIR lodged by the brother of the victim along with Annexure-4 series showing statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P.C. That apart, Annexure-5, copy of judgment in S.T. Case No. 84 of 1998 along with copies of deposition of witnesses in Annexure-6 series are gone through.
4. I have perused the aforesaid materials carefully and found that involvement of the petitioner in the complicity of the crime is not reflected in the said materials placed before me during hearing of the case, Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Panigrahi, has strenuously argued that on the date of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was off from the village. Neither his name finds place in the FIR nor any of the witnesses has implicated him in his statement made to the police under Section 161, Cr. P.C. during investigation or implicated him as one of the culprits in his substantive evidence in Court.
5. In the ultimate result, I am convinced that it is a fit case where this Court is bound to interfere with the impugned order of cognizance as it amounts to abuse of the process of Court for the reasons mentioned above. That being so, the impugned order is liable to be and is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the criminal misc. case is allowed.
Criminal Misc. Case 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