SHANTANU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present revision seeks to challenge the order dtd. 25/9/2014 passed by learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 435 of 2013 whereby, his application filed for discharge from the offences under Sec. 493, 417 and 306 IPC was rejected.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 4/9/2012 an FIR was lodged by one Rajalaxmi Mohapatra before the IIC, Mahila Police Station, Cuttack alleging that her daughter, namely, Pratikhya Priyadarsini Biswal (Pinki), the deceased, was living with one Nihar Ranjan Pradhan (Pintu) since 2006. Both of them were committing crime and had been jailed on some occasions. The present petitioner happens to be the advocate of Nihar and the deceased. It is alleged that taking advantage of the imprisonment of Nihar, the petitioner secretly married the deceased and kept her as his wife in a house at C.D.A., Sector-11 on rent. It is further alleged that the deceased insisted that the said marriage should be solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs, but the petitioner had though assured to do so, yet fell back from his word, as a result of which, the deceased committed suicide. Basing on such FIR, Mahila P.S. Case No.146 of 2012 was registered under Ss. 493/417/306 of IPC. Upon completion of investigation, however, charge sheet was submitted under Ss. 493/417/406/306 of IPC and cognizance was taken of the said offences. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Session for trial and is pending in the Court learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack.

(3.) On 25/9/2013, the petitioner-accused filed an application under Sec. 227 of Cr.P.C. in the Court below with prayer to discharge him from the offences mainly on the ground that the essential ingredients of the same do not exist. The learned Court below after taking into consideration the settled position of law and the allegations made in the FIR held that in so far as the offence under Sec. 406 of IPC is concerned, there is absolutely no material on record to proceed against the accused and accordingly discharged him from the said offence. However, it was held that the materials on record, prima facie, satisfy the allegations against the accused under Sec. 493/417/306 of IPC. The said order is impugned in the present revision.