SAURAVA BARIK Vs. GOURI KAUDI ALIAS GOURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for determination in this case is whether accepting the allegations in the complaint petition and the materials on record in toto, a prima facie case under S. 493, Indian Penal Code (IPC) is made out against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner Saurava Barik aged about 45 years is an Advocate practising at Sundargarh. He filed this application under S. 492, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) for quashing the order passed on 10-3-1992 by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jharsuguda in ICC No. 63/91 taking cognizance of the offence u/S.493, IPC and issuing summons to him. The criminal case was instituted on the complaint filed by the opposite party Smt. Gouri Kaudi alias Gouri alleging inter alia, that at the relevant time she was staying with her father mother and younger brother at Sundargarh and was working as a maid servant in the house of different persons including one lswar Behera who was Advocate's clerk attached to the petitioner. The said lswar Behera had good relationship with family of the opposite party and she was addressing him as 'Mamu' (maternal uncle). In the month of Asadha, 1989 Iswar Behera with his family was going to Puri. On his request the opposite party accompanied him to Puri. On the way the petitioner met them at Cuttack and went with them to Puri. There all of them stayed in a lodge. One evening the petitioner and Iswar Behera asked the opposite party to visit Jagannath temple with them; on her refusal they threatened to return to Sundargarh leaving her alone at Puri. Under such compulsion she accompanied them to the temple despite her unwillingness. In the temple the petitioner brought two garlands, put one on neck of the opposite party and took the oath that they became husband and wife since then and he would not leave her during his lifetime. Then Iswar Behera forced the opposite party to take oath in similar terms and out of fear she put the garland on the neck of the petitioner. On the same night the petitioner forcibly took the opposite party to his room, assured that she was his wife and he will treat her as such till her death. It is specifically mentioned in the complaint petition that previously the opposite party had knowledge that the petitioner had his wife and children. When she confronted him about that the petitioner told her that she should not bother about that and he would arrange separate residence, food and clothing for her. In the same night the petitioner cohabited with the opposite party. After returning from Puri the petitioner arranged one room in the house of Iswar Behera at Sundargarh for the opposite party where she stayed. He regularly visited her and cohabited with her. In the month of Pausa, 1989 the petitioner told the opposite party that they would stay at Beheramal, Jharsuguda; then she came to Jharsuguda to the house of Puina Sahu and told her regarding their relationship and took a house on rent at Beheramal. There also the petitioner frequently visited her and they lived as husband and wife. In the month of Baisakh when the opposite party informed the petitioner at Berhermal that she was pregnant he proposed that she should terminate her pregnancy but she did not agree. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Sundargarh assuring her to return soon but failed to do so. Thereafter, he did not take any care of her. Finding no other way the opposite party accompanied by Puina Sahu went to Sundargarh and met the petitioner in the court premises there, but he abused them in filthy language and refused to receive her as his wife. The opposite party further averred that the petitioner by deceit caused her, who is not lawfully married to him, to believe that she is lawfully married to him and thereby cohabited and had sexual intercourse with the opposite party. On the above allegations the opposite party prayed to the court to take cognizance of the offence under S. 493, IPC against the petitioner and to punish him appropriately. The complaint petition was filed on 25-9-91.

(3.) The opposite party reiterated the gist of her case as discussed in the foregoing paragraph in her initial statement.