Orissa High Court
Pintu Ray vs State Of Orissa on 28 January, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC NO.2804 OF 2024
(Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing of proceeding in G.R. Case
No.190/2023 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh)
Pintu Ray
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Orissa
and another ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner: Mr.Soumya Ranjan Das,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opp.Party No.1: Mr.R.B.Mishra,
Addl. Standing Counsel
For Opp.Party No.2: None
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
28.1.2025.
CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 1 of 11
Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner is the sole accused in G.R. Case
No.190/2023 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M.,
Panposh at Rourkela facing trial for allegedly
committing the offences under Sections 493/417/506
of I.P.C. In the present application filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., he seeks quashment of the aforesaid
criminal proceedings.
2. The facts of the case are that on 01.12.2023, an
F.I.R. was lodged by the victim (name withheld) before
the I.I.C., Mahila P.S., Sector-3, Rourkela stating
therein that she and the Petitioner accused had
married in the Court on 13.1.2023 at Rourkela. It was
further stated that she and the Petitioner had a
relationship of more than 4 years. They had earlier
married in Samaleswari Temple at Sector-5 on
14.4.2021 and were living as husband and wife.
However, the Petitioner being instigated by his parents
inflicted physical torture on her demanding
Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry.
CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 2 of 11
On such complaint being lodged, Rourkela
Mahila P.S. Case No.2/2023 was registered under
Sections 493/417/506 of I.P.C. and investigation was
taken up. Upon completion of investigation, charge
sheet was submitted against the Petitioner-accused for
the aforementioned offences on 31.10.2023. The
Petitioner had originally approached this Court in
CRLMC No.993/2023, which was disposed of by order
dated 5.5.2023 directing him to surrender before the
Court below and to move for bail. Accordingly, the
Petitioner surrendered in the Court of learned
S.D.J.M., Panposh on 16.5.2023 and was released on
bail on the same day.
3. Heard Mr. S.R.Das, learned counsel for the
Petitioner-accused and Mr. R.B.Mishra, learned Addl.
Standing Counsel for the State.
4. Mr. Das would argue that when the admitted
case of the victim is that she and the Petitioner had a
love relationship for more than 4 years and were also
married in the temple and Court, the F.I.R. allegations
CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 3 of 11
can only be treated as exaggerated. He further submits
that even otherwise, none of the offences as alleged are
made out against the Petitioner. Mr. Das also refers to
the statement of the victim recorded under Section
161 of Cr.P.C. to submit that the prosecution case as
laid is not at all made out for which continuance of the
case would amount to abuse of the process of the
Court.
5. Mr. R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
for the State, on the other hand, argues that there is a
clear allegation of demand of Rs.2,00,000/- by the
Petitioner from the victim and of subjecting her to
physical torture for such reason. Moreover, it is clear
from the materials on record that the Petitioner is
guilty of deceiving the victim that he had married her
only with an intent to make an unlawful gain by
utilizing her.
6. Before proceeding to examine the merits of the
rival contentions noted above, this Court would like to
keep in mind the principles for exercising inherent
CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 4 of 11
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at the outset. It is
trite law that if the offences alleged are, on the face of
it, not made out, continuance of the case would be an
abuse of the process of Court and in such event, the
High Court can exercise its inherent power to stop the
proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the
celebrated decision of the Apex Court rendered in the
case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan
Lal and others; reported in 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 335,
wherein certain guidelines were issued for exercise of
inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein
below;
“(1) where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order ofCRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 5 of 11
a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or ‘complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge”.
CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 6 of 11
7. Coming to the facts of the present case, as already
stated, as per the F.I.R. the Petitioner and the victim
were in a love relationship for more than 4 years and
had also married in a temple on 14.4.2021. They lived
as husband and wife for the entire period and finally
married in the Court at Rourkela on 13.1.2023. The
victim nowhere alleged that the Petitioner had deceived
her in the marriage or caused her to believe that she
was married to him though in fact he had not. Section
493 of I.P.C. reads as follows;
“493. Cohabitation caused by a man
deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful
marriage.-Every man who by deceit causes
any woman who is not lawfully married to him
to believe that she is lawfully married to him
and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with
him in that belief, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.”
The necessary ingredients to constitute the
offence under Section 493 of I.P.C. are as follows;
“(1)The accused practised deception on a
woman;
(2)The intention of the accused to practise deceit
was to induce a woman (complainant) to believe
that she was lawfully married to the accused;
(3)There was cohabitation or sexual intercourse
as a result of the deception.”
CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 7 of 11
8. The victim being examined by the I.O. has stated
more or less the same thing in the F.I.R. about the
occurrence. This Court fails to understand as to how
the offence under Section 493 of I.P.C is made out
when the question of deception by the Petitioner is
automatically nullified on the face of the admission by
the victim herself that they had a consensual
relationship that culminated in marriage in the temple
as also in Court. So, the question of the petitioner
deceiving the victim that he had lawfully married her
though he had not, does not arise at all.
9. Coming to the offence under Section 417 of
I.P.C., which is punishment for cheating as defined
under Section 415 of I.P.C., it is the settled position of
law that the following essential ingredients of cheating
are required to be satisfied to bring home the offence.
“(i) deception of any person;
(ii) whereby fraudulently or dishonestly
inducing that person to deliver any property
to any person or to consent that any person
shall retain any property; orCRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 8 of 11
(iii) intentionally inducing that person to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do or
omit to do if he was not so deceived;
(iv) which act or omission is caused or is likely
to cause damage or harm to that person in
body, mind, reputation or property.”
10. Again, reading the F.I.R. or the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. does not
at all indicate as to how or in what manner the
accused deceived the victim either by any false or
misleading representation or by any other action or
omission. All that has been alleged is that the victim
was subjected to physical torture along with the
demand for Rs.2,00,000/- from her father. In the
circumstances, the demand cannot be construed as
cheating within the meaning of Section 415 of I.P.C.
As such, the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. is also
not made out.
11. From a bare reading of the F.I.R. and the
statement of the victim there is no whisper of any
threat being held out by the Petitioner save and except
that there was a demand for Rs.2 lakhs. Though there
CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 9 of 11
is a feeble allegation that the victim was subjected to
physical torture yet, the details thereof have not been
stated in the least. The F.I.R. also does not mention
any injury having been sustained by the victim.
12. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis made
hereinbefore, the only possibility that emerges on a
reading of the F.I.R. and the charge sheet including the
statement of the victim and other witnesses is that
there was some discord and dissension between the
petitioner and the victim, who are none other than
husband and wife. There is a strong possibility that
such marital discord was blown out of proportion
probably at the heat of the moment. For such reason
therefore, a definite criminal intention cannot be
imputed to the Petitioner. Moreover, this is a case
where, even if the prosecution case is accepted on its
face value, the offences alleged are not made out at all
in view of what has been narrated herein before. Thus,
continuance of the proceedings would continuously be
an abuse of the process of Court.
CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 10 of 11
13. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the CRLMC is
allowed. The proceedings in G.R. Case No.190/2023 of
the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh are hereby
quashed.
…………………………….
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Ashok Kumar Behera Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 29-Jan-2025 12:18:20
CRLMC No.2804 of 2024 Page 11 of 11
[ad_1]
Source link