DAYANIDHI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C., inter alia, praying to quash further proceedings in G. R. Case No. 117 of 1998 corresponding to Jharpokharia P. S. Case No. 11 of 1998, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Baripada. It appears that on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by one Subasini Nayak Opp. party No. 2, Jharpokharia P. S. case No. 11 of 1998 was initiated under Section 493 I.P.C. against the petitioner.

(2.) The moot point which needs determination in the present case is whether accepting the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and other materials on record, prima facie case under Section 493 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. For better appreciation of the correct facts, narrations made in the F.I.R. are stated herein below. It is alleged by Subasini Nayak, the informant, that she along with her father and mother were working in the house of Dayanidhi Nayak as domestic helper. Dayanidhi promised to marry her and carried on intercourse with her for about one year. He came to the house of the informant in the year 1996 for the first time in the month of 'Margasira' on a Wednesday during the absence of her mother and father and had sexual intercourse. Thereafter, as and when opportunity was available, he had intercourse with her on number of occasions. It is further alleged that the said Dayanidhi Nayak had cautioned her not to disclose this fact to any person. In the meanwhile the informant became pregnant for the last 8 months. Thereafter, as and when the informant requested Dayanidhi to marry her, he stalled over the matter on some pretext or other and also threatened her. It is further alleged that about 19 to 20 days before lodging the F.I.R., said Dayanidhi took her to his house at night and kept her there, but on the next day drove her out from the house. He also denied to be the father of the child conceived by her. These facts were told by the informant before her father and mother and a village meeting was convened, but Dayanidhi did not admit any of the facts in the meeting and the informant was con-straind to file the F.I.R. on 6-2-1998.

(3.) The learned S.D.J.M., on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police, took cognizance under Section 493 read with 506 I.P.C. The petitioner surrendered before the S.D.J.M. and his bail application being rejected, moved the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter this Court and by the order dated 16-4-98, he was released on bail.