Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Orissa High Court

Babu Charan Patra vs State Of Orissa And Another .... ... on 28 March, 2023

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                    CRLMC No.2089 of 2017

  Babu Charan Patra                    ....               Petitioner
                                   Mr. Debasis Sarangi, Advocate



                              -Versus-


  State of Orissa and Another           ....      Opposite Parties
                         Mr. Pradip Ku. Rout, AGA for O.P. No.1
              Ms. Puspamitra Mohapatra, Advocate for O.P. no.2



           CORAM:
           JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

              DATE OF JUDGMENT:28.03.2023

1.

The petitioner has challenged the criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.205 of 2016 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M. Gunupur on the ground that the same is a result of a vexatious prosecution initiated with an intention and oblique motive to harass him and therefore, it is liable to be interfered with and quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. An FIR was lodged by the informant on 12th October, 2016 after the death of her daughter on 2nd August, 2016 with the allegation that the petitioner husband and in-laws to be responsible for her death. In connection therewith, Gunupur P.S. Case No.104 was registered under Section 304-B IPC and other allied offences and finally chargesheet was submitted under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC against the petitioner alone, CRLMC No.2089 of 2017 Page 1 of 5 Babu Charan Patra Vrs. State of Orissa and Another whereupon, the learned S.D.J.M. Gunupur took cognizance of the said offences by order dated 5th June, 2017 under Annexuree-4.

3. Heard Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State opposite party No.1 and Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the informant opposite party No.2.

4. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant's daughter died in the month of August, 2016 and almost after two months, the FIR was lodged i.e. 12th October, 2016 with the false allegations therein and it was only on account of a dispute over the custody of the petitioner's son. It is further submitted that immediately after the suicidal death of the victim, Gunupur P.S. UD Case No.12 dated 3rd August, 2016 was registered and in course of inquiry, the involvement of the petitioner was neither alleged by the informant and others nor suspected and after two months, the report was lodged with false allegations claiming that the petitioner and her in-laws to be responsible for the incident. While contending so, Mr. Sarangi refers to the statements of the witnesses and of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in UD proceeding to satisfy the Court that nothing adverse was alleged against the petitioner.

5. Mr. Rout, learned AGA and Ms. Mohaptra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 would submit that since ill-treatment and cruelty has been alleged and proved with the petitioner being chargesheeted for having abetted the death of the deceased, the learned court below rightly considering the materials received along with the chargesheet took cognizance of the offences and therefore, the criminal proceeding vis-à-vis the petitioner is absolutely justified and in accordance with law.

Babu Charan Patra Vrs. State of Orissa and Another

6. Gone through the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during enquiry and in course of Gunupur P.S. UD Case No.12 and it is made to reveal that the daughter of the informant committed suicide by hanging and none of her family members including the informant suspected the involvement of the petitioner and even disclosed that both the spouses had never quarrelled nor anyone else was involved. In fact, the informant deposed during the enquiry that she does not suspect the petitioner or any outsider for the alleged death of her daughter. The statements of other witnesses do not point any finger against the petitioner as it is similar to the version of the informant. In that case, what led to the lodging of the report which is after about two months is not transpired from the record. On a reading of the FIR though the petitioner and his family was held to be responsible but the State failed to bring any such material submitted along with the chargesheet to show that the petitioner to be responsible for the alleged death of the deceased. No reasonable explanation is coming forth to satisfy the Court as to why the informant turned hostile to the petitioner and contrary to her statement before the local police in the UD case lodged the FIR. If immediately after the death of the victim, during the UD proceeding, nothing adverse was alleged against the petitioner, in the considered view of the Court, suspicion looms large on the claim of the informant, who almost after two months, lodged the FIR and held the petitioner and his family to be responsible. The explanation that the informant was sick and hence the delay in reporting the matter to the police is quite unusual and absurd as any other member of her family could have lodged the FIR.

7. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the crux of the dispute is over the custody of the child born to the CRLMC No.2089 of 2017 Page 3 of 5 Babu Charan Patra Vrs. State of Orissa and Another petitioner and the deceased which is also revealed from the FIR. It is contended that the petitioner's son is presently in the custody of the informant which is opposed to the petitioner and in that connection, both the sides are in a dispute which is the only reason behind lodging of the FIR. The informant alleged in the FIR that the petitioner is pressurizing and threatening her family while demanding custody of the child and also to kill her which, in the considered view of the Court, does appear to be improbable especially in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The contention of Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner, who refers to the materials collected during enquiry in UD case, rather appears probable which is to the effect that the FIR has been lodged to retaliate the petitioner over the custody of the child so demanded by him. Furthermore, the explanation in reporting the matter to the police with a delay of two months is strongly suspectful as against the evidence in UD case which never alleged anything adverse against the petitioner. So, therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the criminal prosecution has been thrust upon the petitioner with a chargesheet filed when the evidence collected during enquiry in UD case immediately preceding the investigation is diabolically opposite and runs contrary to the claim of the informant and hence, it has to be interfered with exercising inherent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled principles of law as enunciated by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604 for having fulfilled one of the conditions about the prosecution to have been levied with vindictiveness or an ulterior motive in order to wreak vengeance against him.

8. Accordingly, it is ordered.

Babu Charan Patra Vrs. State of Orissa and Another

9. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed. Consequently, criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.205 of 2016 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M. Gunupur is hereby quashed for the reasons discussed herein above.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU CRLMC No.2089 of 2017 Page 5 of 5