PRADEEP KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this application, the Petitioners seeks to quash the order dtd. 16/2/2022 passed by the learned SDJM, Nilagiri in CT Case No.466 of 2020, wherein it took cognizance for the offences under Ss. 498-A/294/307/506/34 of the IPC read with Sec. 4 of the D.P. Act implicating the Petitioner.

(2.) The background facts of the case are that the marriage of Opposite Party No.2 was solemnized with Petitioner No.1 on 2/7/2017. At the time of marriage, there was a demand for dowry from the mother-in-law, father-in-law, and two sisters-in-law of the bride, in the form of gold ornaments, cash, dress materials, and other articles. Accordingly, pursuant to the demand made by the bridegroom's family, the father of Opposite Party No.2 deposited a sum of Rs.2,60,000.00 towards the purchase of costly household articles, in addition to providing gold ornaments. It was further demanded that a sum of Rs.15,00,000.00 be paid, apart from meeting other marriage-related and miscellaneous expenses. In compliance with this demand, the father of Opposite Party No.2 transferred a sum of Rs.2,30,000.00 to the account of the bridegroom's side (Account No. 11642149462 maintained at the State Bank of India). On the date of marriage, an amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 was paid out of the demanded Rs.15,00,000.00, along with Rs.2,00,000.00 towards BARAT expenses. Subsequently, after the marriage, an additional demand of Rs.5,00,000.00 was made. Upon failure to meet this demand, Opposite Party No.2 was subjected to ill-treatment and torture by all the members of her in-laws' family. The gold ornaments brought by the bride were retained by the in-laws and were not returned despite several requests. A further sum of Rs.30,000.00 was also transferred to the account of the bridegroom's father as part payment of the demand. Despite the above payments, Opposite Party No.2 was never treated properly and was assaulted on several occasions for non-fulfilment of the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000.00. Later, a demand for Rs.60,00,000.00 was made towards the purchase of a flat in Bhubaneswar, and when the father of the bride declined on the ground of financial constraints, the physical torture continued. It is alleged that even an attempt was made on her life. Based on a written complaint lodged by Opposite Party No.2, the police registered the case and took up investigation. Upon completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted on 29/12/2021, pursuant to which the learned trial court took cognizance.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner though submitted that the order of cognizance is not in accordance with law, there is no material to support her contention either argued or submitted in any form. The allegations appearing in the FIR has simply been denied by the Petitioner besides submitting the fact that the C.P. No.164 of 2022 filed by the Opposite Party No.2 whereupon the husband of the Petitioner moved for restitution of conjugal rights. These submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner has no bearing in respect to the order taking cognizance.