Sanu Das and Another vs State of Orissa and Another

R.K. Dash, J.—In this petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C the petitioners seek to quash the F.I.R. and the criminal proceeding initiated against them.

Short facts : Smt. Puspanjnli Das (hereinafter referred to as ''the victim''), daughter of the informant Prakash Chandra Das, was given in marriage to Sanu Das, a Computer Engineer who serves in U.S.A., on 22.11.1996. After marriage, both bride and bride-groom resided for some days in the latter''s house at Forest park, Bhubaneswar and thereafter left for U.S.A- It is alleged, the marital abode of the victim being in troubled water, she left U.S. A. and came down to her in-laws'' house. After some days, her husband also came, but stayed for a few days and left for U.S.A. The victim while living in in-laws'' house was physically and mentally tortured by her parents-in-law as well as husband''s elder brother, petitioner No. 1 on account of non-fulfilment of demand of huge sum of money as dowry. Complaining of ill-treatment to his daughter as aforesaid, the informant lodged written report in the Capital Police Station, Bhubaneswar. On receipt of the said report P.S. Case No. 585/98 (G.R. Case No. 3887 of 98) under Sections 498A and 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered and investigation commenced. It transpires from the case diary that during investigation some witnesses, including the informant, victim and others were examined. Referring to their statements as also the F.I.R., petitioners contend that allegations of demand of dowry and consequent ill-treatment are against the parents-in-law and not against them and therefore, the F.I.R. and criminal proceeding should be quashed so far as they are concerned.

I have heard the learned Counsel for parties and have gone through the statements of the witnesses available in the case diary.

Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Counsel for petitioners, contends that if the allegations made in the F.I.R. coupled with the statement of the victim are taken into consideration in their face value, the only offence made out against the petitioner No. 1 is u/s 323, I.P.C. and not under Sections 498A., I.P.C. and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and therefore, the F.I.R. and consequent proceeding so far as these offences are concerned should be quashed.

Mr. B.H. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the informant, strenuously urges that when the investigation is in progress and further material are yet to be collected, it is too early to say that there is no prima facie case u/s 498A, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against petitioner No. 1. He would contend that a reading of victim''s statement which of course is not true reproduction of what she stated shows that all the family members except the petitioner No. 2 connived together and ill-treated her both mentally and physically on account of nonfulfilment of demand of dowry. So, it being not a case of no evidence, submits Mr. Mohanty, the whole matter should be left to the Court below to find out the basis of the evidence to be adduced during trial as to whether petitioner No. 1 is guilty of the offence as alleged.

Law is well settled that the High Court has inherent power to reach out injustice and quash the F.I.R. and the criminal proceeding, but such power should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The normal procedure of criminal trial cannot be cut short in a casual manner and it is not within the competence of the High Court to embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability and genuinness of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the statements of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.

As to what would be the relevant consideration when prayer has been made to quash a proceeding, it is apposite to refer, to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, where their Lordships have catalogued certain categories of cases by way of illustration where the High Court in order to prevent abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice can exercise power to quash the proceeding. Those categories of cases, as pointed out by the Court by way of illustration are as follows:

"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.

Where the allegation in the First Information Report and other mate- rials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. 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.

Where the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 u/s 155(2) of the Code.

Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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.

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 of the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengence on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

Keeping in view the guidelines of the Apex Court as aforesaid, it is to be seen whether on scrutiny of the F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesses no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners requiring this Court to quash the F.I.R. and the criminal proceeding in exercise of inherent power u/s 482, Cr.P.C, Mr. B.H. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the informant, fairly concedes that the victim girl has not complained anything against petitioner No. 2 Smt. Bijayalaxmi Das who has been wrongly arrayed as accused in the F.I R. But so far as petitioner No. 1 Sanu Das is concerned, he would contend that sufficient materials are available to show that he connived with his parents and brother and ill-treated the victim since demand of huge sum as dowry was not satisfied. To appreciate his contention, I have scrutinised the statement of the victim available on recored. She has vividly described the alleged ill-treatment meted out to her both at her in-laws'' house and in U.S.A. She has alleged that during her short stay in-laws'' house, her mother-in-law was also similarly expressing that since her father had not given anything he should give at least air-fare to go to U.S.A. Her father-in-law was also similarly expressing that if one looks for an American son-in-law, he should at least give to and fro air-fare. She has further stated that she heard her father-in-law telling his son over phone to insist on her to get money from her father. She also alleged that her husband has extra-marital relations with a foreign girl to which she raised protest. But he did not pay any heed to it and on the other hand, assaulted her for which she left U.S.A. and come back to India. She arrived at Calcutta and stayed for some days in her relation''s house at Calcutta. Both her parents-in-law knowing that she was coming from U.S.A. did not go to receive her. She then came to Bhubaneswar and stayed in-laws'' house and while she was there, her father-in-law pestered her to get plane-fare and a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from her father. Her mother in-law also misbehaved with her expressing that now-a-days a clerk during marriage gets dowry worth lakhs of rupees, whereas her son did not get anything. She has further alleged that one day both petitioner No. 1 and his father tried to snatch away her passport, visa and return air-ticket and when she refused to part with those documents, she was beaten.

On a reading of the above statement of the victim and keeping in mind the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court referred to above, I am of the view that no offence whatsoever is made out against petitioner No. 2. So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned there being no allegation of demand of dowry either directly or indirectly, offence u/s 498A I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act is not made out against him. However, there is a prima facie case u/s 323, I.P.C. against him which is a non-cognizable and bailable. Since there are other accused persons, namely, the parents-in-law and the husband of the victim and the offence alleged against them is cognizable, it would be within the competence of the police to proceed with the investigation and if materials are available, it can submit charge-sheet against all the persons, including the petitioner No. 1 against whom, as stated earlier, there is prima facie case u/s 323, I.P.C.

In the result, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed in part. The F.I.R. and the criminal proceeding in so far as petitioner No. 2-Smt. Bijayalaxmi Das is concerned are quashed.