Allowed

Kabita Rout v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC4 Jul 2022CRLMC/1113/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed the proceedings framing charge under Section 420 IPC against the petitioners. The court held that since the husband was already prosecuted for criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) over the same ornaments, the cheating charge could not be entertained.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceeding in ICC No.608 of 2013 is quashed and directed to be closed.

Kabita Rout Vs State of Orissa — Quashing and FIR | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.1113 of 2015

¶3

Kabita Rout & others

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Orissa & another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

ORDER

Order No.

04.07.2022

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

2 . This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioners for quashment of the order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road in ICC No.608 of 2013 framing the charge under Section 420 IPC against them.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. None appears for the Opposite Party No.2.

¶17

As it appears the Opposite Party No.2 is the wife of Petitioner No.3. When marital discord occurred between them, a complaint was made alleging dowry torture and misappropriation of gold ornaments given to her at the time of marriage. Such complaint was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station wherein undisputably charge sheet has already been filed against the husband (Petitioner No.3 in this case) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A/323/506/495/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the D.P Act. Pursuant to the same, it is submitted

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

that cognizance has been taken and the husband has been proceeded with in the said case. However, subsequently when the victim came to know that her gold ornaments which were pledged by her husband was going to be auctioned by the financer, she filed a complaint against the Petitioners alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The court in such a proceeding has taken cognizance and also framed charge to proceed against the Petitioners. The Petitioners as such have challenged the same to be misconceived in this petition.

¶21

As it appears for keeping the alleged gold ornaments of the wife and converting it for his own use, the husband has already been charged for commission of offence under Section 406 IPC i.e. criminal breach of trust and cognizance for the same stated to have been taken. A complaint so filed thereafter for cheating the Opposite Party No.2-Complainant of the gold ornaments kept by the husband which was hypothecated are going to be auctioned could not have been entertained by the court in the aforesaid factual backdrop inasmuch as for the self-same cause the husband has been proceeded with under Section 406 IPC. The court therefore could not have framed the charge. Accordingly, this Court allows this Criminal Misc. Case and consequently quashes the entire proceeding in ICC No.608 of 2013 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road. It is directed that the court in seisin over the matter on receipt of a certified copy of the order shall close the proceeding against the Petitioners.

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶24

PKS

¶25

(S. Pujahari) Judge

Kabita Rout v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kabita Rout v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshay Halwa@Halba Vs State of Odisha

Akshya Parida@Akshya Kumar Parida Vs State of Odisha

Subash Chandra Tripathy Vs State of Odisha

Seshadev Sahu Vs Puspalata Dalai

Rajendra K.Pradhan Vs State

Varsha C.Gole Vs v.Vasudeva Sastry