SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dr. Maheswar Panda And Others vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 April, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

CRLMC No. 3156 Of 2008

An application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 in connection with G.R. Case No.3190 of 2006
pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.
—————————-

Dr. Maheswar Panda
and others …….. Petitioners

-Versus-

State of Orissa
and another …….. Opposite parties

For Petitioners: – Mr. B.S. Dasparida

For Opp. Party No.1: – Mr. Arupananda Das
Addl. Govt. Advocate

For Opp. Party No.2: – None

—————————

P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
—————————————————————————————————
Date of Hearing Judgment: 23.04.2018
—————————————————————————————————

S. K. SAHOO, J. This is an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

filed by the petitioners Dr. Maheswar Panda, Sailabala Panda and

Sanjib Kumar Panda who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law

and husband of the informant-opposite party no.2 Monalisa
2

Panda @ Monalisa Dash with a prayer to quash the impugned

order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,

Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No.3190 of 2006 in taking cognizance

of offences under sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code

and sections 4 and 6-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and

issuance of process against them. The said case arises out of

Khurda Mahila P.S. Case No.131 of 2006.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the petitioner no.1 Dr. Maheswar Panda is dead.

Therefore, this application so far as the petitioner no.1 is

concerned, has become infructuous.

Notice was issued to opposite party no.2 which is

sufficient. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

The opposite party no.2 lodged the first information

report on 09.08.2006 before the Inspector in charge of Khurda

Mahila police station, on the basis of which the case was

instituted under sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and

sections 4 and 6-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion

of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under sections

498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4 and 6-A of the

Dowry Prohibition Act.
3

Mr. B.S. Dasparida, learned counsel for the

petitioners contended that the petitioner no.3 filed a petition

under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned

Judge, Family Court, Cuttack which was registered as Civil

Proceeding No.728 of 2002 against the opposite party no.2. The

opposite party no.2 also filed C.P. No. 683 of 2002 against the

petitioner no.3 for similar relief. Since both the parties decided

to live together and to lead conjugal life, vide order dated

25.07.2003, the civil proceeding filed by the petitioner no.3 as

well as by the opposite party no.2 were disposed of and the

opposite party no.2 agreed to join the company of the petitioner

no.3 within seven days. It is contended by the learned counsel

for the petitioners that in spite of the order passed on

25.07.2003 in Civil Proceeding No.728 of 2002, the opposite

party no.2 did not join the company of the petitioner no.3 and

therefore, the petitioner no.3 was constrained to file a petition

for divorce before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack

which was registered in Civil Proceeding No.485 of 2004. It is

further contended that while the divorce proceeding was

subjudiced, the first information report was lodged by the

opposite party no.2 on 09.08.2006 containing all false and

fabricated allegations for which in Khurda Mahila P.S. Case
4

No.131 of 2006 was instituted on 09.08.2006. It is further

contended that the divorce petition filed by the petitioner no.3

was allowed vide judgment and order dated 06.05.2006 by the

learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack and the marriage between

the petitioner no.3 and opposite party no.2 which was

solemnized on 17.06.1998 was dissolved by a decree of divorce.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has annexed the

orders passed in Civil Proceeding No.728 of 2002 and Civil

Proceeding No.683 of 2002 as well as the judgment of the

learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No.485

of 2002. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners

that since the parties are living separately since 2001 and the

divorce decree has already been passed in the year 2006 and

there is no challenge to such divorce of decree and the matter

has come to rest, no useful purpose would be served in allowing

the proceeding to continue particularly when the said proceeding

was instituted while the divorce proceeding was subjudiced

containing the allegations which are of the year 1998 to 2001.

Mr. Arupananda Das, learned Addl. Government

Advocate for the State has produced the case diary and placed

the materials available on record.
5

Considering the submissions made by the learned

counsels for the respective parties, the nature of accusation

against the petitioners nos. 2 and 3 as available on record and

the fact that the case arises out of a matrimonial dispute and

decree of divorce has already been passed since 2006 and the

dispute between the parties has come to the rest since long and

the opposite party no.2 seems to be not interested with the

proceeding for which she did not appear in spite of receipt of the

notice on this Court, therefore, I am of humble view that no

useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to

continue further and rather it would amount to abuse of process

of the Court which would not be in the interests of any of the

parties.

Therefore, invoking inherent power under section

482 of Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the ratio laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B.S. Joshi and others -Vrs.-

State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 25

Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 99, I am inclined to accept the

prayer made in the petition and direct the impugned order dated

12.12.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in

G.R. Case No.3190 of 2006 in taking cognizance of offences

under sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4
6

and 6-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issuance of process

against the petitioners nos.2 and 3 stands quashed.

Accordingly, CRLMC application is allowed.

…………………………….
S. K. Sahoo, J.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 23rd April 2018/Sukanta

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation