PRAVAKAR MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who languished in custody in spite of the specific direction issued by this Court are constrained to approach once again invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They have inter alia prayed to quash the order dated June 12, 2001 and June 14, 2001 passed in G.R. Case No. 105 of 2001 by the learned S.D.J.M., Udala.

(2.) By order dated 22-6-2001 notice was issued and it was directed that the matter is likely to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The lower Court records were also called for. After receipt of the L.C.R. the matter was listed for admission. On the consent of the parties: the case was heard.

(3.) For proper appreciation of the orders passed by the learned S.D.J.M., short facts, which are necessary, are stated hereinbelow. The two petitioners aged about 69 and 64 years respectively filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 3334 of 2001 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for grant of anticipatory bail. It was averred in the petition and submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that being enraged by a proceeding initiated by the husband (son of the petitioners) under Sections 13(1) and 1(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act which was registered as Original Suit No. 12 of 2001 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udala, the informant - wife (daughter-in-law) filed an F.I.R. on April II, 2001 at Kaptipada Police Station on the basis of which P.S. Case No. 22 of 2001 was initiated under Sections 498-A, 506, and 314 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said case was later on converted to G.R. Case No. 105 of 2001 on the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Udala. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that charge under Section 314, I.P.C. is not sustainable in law, as the informant was alive.