AJIT KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Ajit Kumar Sahoo
STATE OF ODISHA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C') has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of C.T. Case No. 2869 of 2019 pending in the court of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 72 of 2019 under Sections 498A/323/506/354/34 IPC and all proceedings consequent thereto.
(2.) The allegations in the FIR are as summarised hereinbelow:
a) The complainant-victim Mrs. Jharana Behera, lodged a complaint on 01.07.2019 in the Mahila Police Station-Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda. The content of the complaint as set out implicates the petitioner No.1 and his family including his father, mother, adopted brother, adopted brother's sister and adopted brother's wife, for committing the offences punishable under 498A/323/506/354/34 of I.P.C.
b) According to the complainant, she had tied the nuptial knot with the petitioner No.1 on 16.01.2011. The petitioner No.1's family was provided with hefty amount of dowry which included Television, Washing Machine, Refrigerator etc. and cash amounting to Rs. 2,20,000. In the initial years of marriage, the complainant was treated with disdain by her in-laws for more dowry. It has been further alleged that her refusal to buzz to their demand led to regular physical and mental torture by her in-laws and constant intimidation.
c) The complainant has alleged that the adopted brother of the petitionerNo.1 namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tripathy tried to drag her saree attempting to outrage her modesty. She has also alleged that the petitioner No.1 has kept unnatural sexual relationship with her.
d) Further, the petitioner No.1 and his family forced the complainant to worship his father who is a self-declared godman by drinking the water which was used for washing by his feet and putting his urine in her eyes, on the refusal of which she was the receiving end of constant physical and mental torture by the accused.
(3.) Mr.T.Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the petitioner No.1 and his family have no role in the alleged commission of offences. The FIR filed by the complainant is misconceived, concocted and it does not attract any offences alleged against the petitioners and it was filed only with vexatious and oblique motive. Further the allegations made in the FIR and Statements extracted under section 161 as well as section 164 of Cr. P.C. do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. In fact, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offences and they have been made with an ulterior motive wreaking vengeance against the accused due to personal grudge. The ambiguity and material infirmity of the allegations can be seen through the discrepancies in the prosecution case and the statement of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the proceedings may be quashed under section 482 Cr. P. C as it is a clear abuse of the process of law.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.