Single judge quashed criminal proceedings under S. 498-A IPC against the petitioner, holding allegations against her as sister-in-law were omnibus, unspecific, and amounted to an abuse of process, applying Kahkashan Kausar principles.
The criminal proceeding against the petitioner in the G.R. Case and cuttack Mahila P.S. Case is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.410 of 2020
(In the matter of an appeal under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
Biswaroopa Pati @ Mohanty …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & another … Opposite parties
For Petitioner : Mr. G. Mishra,Sr. Advocate For Opposite : Mr. S.S.Pradhan, AGA for Parties O.P. No.1 Mr.B.Pujari, Advocate for O.P. No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF ARGUMENT: 03.05.2023 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01.06.2023
G. Satapathy, J.
1. By way of this application U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. the
petitioner seeks to quash the criminal proceeding instituted against her in G.R. Case No. 1818 of 2018 arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 93 of 2018 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar),
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020 Page 1 of 15
Cuttack on the grounds inter alia some omnibus and unspecific allegations have been made against her.
2. The facts in background are that the petitioner being the elder sister of the groom is the sister-in-law of informant-bride and on 30.06.2017 the informant bride got married to the younger brother of the petitioner, but it was alleged by the informant that
she was subjected to various mental and physical torture by her husband and other in-laws for demand of more dowry. Accordingly, the bride had lodged an FIR against her husband and in-laws including the petitioner before the IIC, Cuttack Mahila P.S. for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 498-A/294/ 506/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act which was registered vide Cuttack Mahila P.s. Case No. 93 dated 25.09.2018 and the matter was investigated into resulting in submission of charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the aforesaid offences
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020 Page 2 of 15
under which cognizance was taken by the learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack.
Feeling aggrieved with the order taking cognizance of offences, the petitioner has approached this Court in an application U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the criminal proceeding instituted against her on the grounds inter alia that no offence is made out against her and there is only some omnibus/general and unspecific allegations have been made by the informant against her. 3. In the course of hearing of CRLMC, Mr.Goutam Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted the petitioner is the married younger sister-in-law of the informant who has made some reckless and vague allegations against her to rope the present petitioner in this case along with husband and in-laws. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that there is in fact no allegation appearing against the petitioner in the F.I.R. except some
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020
Page 3 of 15
casual reference to her name and there is a long delay in lodging of F.I.R. and there are some bald and omnibus allegations which are unspecific have been stated to be mentioned in the F.I.R. and a bare perusal of the statement of the informant and other witnesses would further unveil only omnibus allegations against the present petitioner who being a married lady resides in a separate mess than that of her parental home. It is, accordingly, submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the present proceeding against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and the same may kindly be quashed. In order to buttress his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has cited the authorities in (i) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others; (2022) 6 SCC 599, (ii) Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another; (2010) 7 SCC 667 and
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020
Page 4 of 15
(iii) Seenivasan vs. State and Another; (2019) 8
SCC 642 .
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020
Page 5 of 15
proceeding, but when the case at hand discloses strong prima facie case against the petitioner, the criminal proceeding cannot and ought not to be quashed by merely terming it as to have been brought on some omnibus and general allegations. Learned A.G.A. accordingly has prayed to dismiss the
CRLMC.
charge sheet itself is indicative of prima facie case against the petitioner for commission of offences and there is specific allegations made against the present petitioner by the informant in her F.I.R. and the same has been substantiated not only by her statement U/S. 161 of Cr.P.C., but also by the statement of her parents and other witnesses. It is further submitted that, the present petitioner has played a definite pivotal role in the marital dispute of the informant and her husband and she was instrumental in driving
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020 Page 6 of 15
out the informant from her matrimonial house. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for O.P. No. 02 has also relied upon the decisions in Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab and Others; (2020) 3 SCC 317 to contend that assessing the statement of witness U/S. 161 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceeding is impermissible in the eye of law and it would be highly improper to appreciate contradictions/inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses at the stage of 482 Cr.P.C. In summing up his argument, learned counsel for O.P. No. 02 has prayed to dismiss the CRLMC by relying upon another decision in Md. Allauddin
Khan Vrs. the State of Bihar & others in Criminal Appeal No. 675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 1151 of 2018 disposed of on 15.04.2019).
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020
Page 7 of 15
allegations have been alleged against her by the informant. It is, however, clear that the offence of dowry torture U/S. 498-A of IPC has often being misused against the in-laws to pressurize the family of the husband and there is a tendency of over implication of relatives of the husband who often reside in separate mess or even at a distant place than the matrimonial home of the bride. In such situation, the Court has onerous duty to check the over implication of the relatives of a husband. It is also true that there are some genuine cases of dowry torture in which the mother-in-law and sister-in-law
play vital role, apart from the errant husband and other in-laws and the Court has to be very careful while dealing with matter concerning matrimonial disputes between husband and wife to separate genuine case from cases of over implication and vexatious cases. Section 498-A of IPC was enacted to ensure to prevent a married woman from harassment
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020 Page 8 of 15
and cruelty at the hands of husband or relatives of husband of such woman, but it is a matter of great concern that a large number of cases continued to be filed U/S. 498-A of IPC alleging harassment of married woman and often such complaints are made/filed in the heat of passion over trivial issues and even many such complaints are not bonafide, however, some cases are genuine cases of dowry torture.
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020
Page 9 of 15
law” and “they used to inflict mental torture on her” and “her husband and her younger sister-in-law had been scolding her very often”. In concluding part of the FIR, the informant has alleged that since her husband, sister-in-law(petitioner) and mother-in-law had been torturing her using filthy language to get valuable property from her parents and depriving her from her conjugal life, she lodged the FIR. The informant has also stated that they had agreed for the marriage without any dowry. The statement of the informant also contains more or less the same allegation as stated in the FIR. The statement of the father of the informant also reveals that he was compelled to arrange marriage at Pramod Resort on the pressure of the petitioner and the petitioner and her mother were looking down upon the informant which is also the allegation as found in the statement of the mother of the informant.
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020 Page 10 of 15
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020
Page 11 of 15
” Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution”.
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020 Page 12 of 15
resides/remains in the house of her father Nrushingha Charan Pati with the other accused persons, but how far such an affidavit would be relevant in this case is never understood since a married woman normally resides in her matrimonial home unless she has got some matrimonial disputes with her in-laws and in this case, there is hardly any allegation against the petitioner for having any dispute with her in-laws. Besides, the decision in Md. Allauddin Khan(supra) has been relied upon by O.P. No.2, but the same being for offences punishable U/Ss. 323/379/34 of IPC is not applicable to the present situation wherein the petitioner has sought for quashing of complaint on the ground of omnibus and general allegations made against her by relying upon the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam(supra) .
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020
Page 13 of 15
specific allegation against the petitioner, rather all the allegations made against the petitioner as narrated in the preceding paragraph are nothing sort of some omnibus and unspecific allegations leveled against her and thereby, the principle as laid down by Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam(supra) , would enure to the benefit of the petitioner.
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020 Page 14 of 15
made clear that the criminal proceeding against rest of the accused persons having being not challenged
and the learned Senior Counsel in the course of argument has clearly submitted to have no objection if the criminal proceeding continues against the rest of the accused persons, the criminal proceeding may
continue against the rest of the accused persons.
(G. Satapathy) Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Secretary Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Dated the 1st day of June, 2023/Kishore Date: 02-Jun-2023 11:18:26
CRLMC No. 410 of 2020
Page 15 of 15
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings instituted against a sister-in-law for alleged dowry harassment can be quashed as an abuse of process when allegations are merely omnibus and unspecific.
Whether an affidavit by a co-accused clarifying the petitioner's residence is relevant when no dispute regarding residence is alleged in the FIR and witness statements.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and OthersApplied¶48
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others; (2022) 6 SCC 599 · Who else cites this
Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and AnotherReferred¶21
Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another; (2010) 7 SCC 667 · Who else cites this
Seenivasan vs. State and AnotherReferred¶24
Seenivasan vs. State and Another; (2019) 8 SCC 642 · Who else cites this
Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab and OthersDistinguished¶34
Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab and Others; (2020) 3 SCC 317 · Who else cites this
Md. Allauddin Khan Vrs. the State of Bihar & othersDistinguished¶34
Md. Allauddin Khan Vrs. the State of Bihar & others
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Biswaroopa Pati @ Mohanty
State of Odisha
G. Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
