Dismissed

Priti Sundar Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Nov 2022CRLMC/3337/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC. The court held that contradictions in the complainant's statements were triable facts to be examined during trial and did not warrant quashing at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to raise grounds for discharge at the time of framing of charges.

Priti Sundar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.3337 of 2019

¶3

Priti Sundar Pradhan & Others Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Another

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. Tapas Ku.Praharaj, SC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER 18.11.2022

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶15

Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners for quashing of the criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.102 of 2018 corresponding to Hinjili P.S. Case No. 119 of 2018 pending in the file of learned JMFC, Hinjilicut on the grounds stated therein.

¶16

Copy of the F.I.R. is at Anneuxre-1 and the same is perused by the Court. In fact, on the lodging of the report by opposite party No.2, Hinjili P.S. Case No. 119 dated 1^st June, 2018 was registered under Section 498-A IPC and other allied offences.

¶17

It is informed to the Court that in the meantime, the investigation was concluded and chargesheet stood filed under the alleged offences and the learned court below has taken cognizance of the said offences as a result.

¶18

Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are the parents in-law of opposite party No.2 and in so far as the allegations under Anneuxre-1 are concerned, they are unacceptable being contradictory to other materials on record. It is further submitted that opposite party No.2 deposed in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the effect that she filed a false case against the petitioners, in particular, petitioner No.1 in order to damage his image and considering the same, the criminal proceeding initiated at her behest should be quashed.

¶19

Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State objects to the contention of Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners against quashing of the criminal proceeding pending before the learned court below on such a ground.

¶20

The Court considered the contents of Annexure-1 and has gone through the chargesheet and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which are at Anneuxre-2 series.

¶21

Considering the materials on record, the Court does not find any reason or bare minimum ground to quash the criminal proceeding pending before the learned court below. It is of the view that if there is any contradiction in the statements of opposite party No.2 and her claim with regard to ill-treatment in the hands of the petitioners, the same shall be examined by the learned court below during enquiry and trial. In other words, it is not a fit case where this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction should quash the criminal proceeding pending before the learned court of JMFC, Hinjilicut and that apart, a suggestion which was put to opposite party No.2 was rightly or wrongly admitted in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which cannot be ground either for the said purpose. In any view of the matter, the Court does not find any such reason to interfere with the proceeding pending in the file of court below.

¶22

9. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶23

In the result, the CRLMC stands dismissed, however, the petitioners are granted liberty to raise all such grounds as available to them under law for seeking discharge at the time of framing of charge before the court of learned JMFC, Hinjilicut in connection with G.R. Case No. 102 of 2018 corresponding to Hinjili P.S. Case No. 119 of 2018 and in the event any such application so moved, the court below shall consider the same and pass appropriate order thereon as per and in accordance with law.

¶24

11. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶25

(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge

¶26

kabita

Priti Sundar Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priti Sundar Pradhan v. State of Odisha

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

Saroj Swain@Saroj Kumar Swain@Saroj Ranjan Swain Vs State of Odisha

Nibash Sundaray Vs State of Odisha

Sishir Mangaraj Vs State of Odisha

Inder Lal Sharma Vs Prem Prakash Panigrahi

Gandharba Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Laxmidhar Dash@Rabinarayan Dash Vs State of Odisha