HIRALAL AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of an FIR filed on 5-10-2005 by opposite party No. 2 Smt.. Sunita Agarwal alleging commission of offences under Sections 498A/325/307/506/ 34 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Bargarh P. S. Case No. 512/05 was registered which was subsequently converted to G. R. Case No. 993/05 in the Court of the SDJM, Bargarh. Opposite party No. 2. asserted in the said FIR that she had married petitioner No. 1 according to caste customs and that after the marriage she went to her in-laws' house situated at Taleher and stayed there with her husband. At the time of marriage, necessary ornaments and other articles were given to her by her parents at the time of marriage, but in spite of that her husband petitioner No. 1 and other petitioners who are her in-laws tortured her and demanded her to bring a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 from her father. On that account they used to torture her and on 23-5- 2002 made an attempt to murder her by pushing her down from the terrace of their house. Consequently she was injured and was hospitalized. Thereafter she returned to her parental house and is staying there at present. As she learnt that her in-laws are arranging a second marriage of her husband petitioner No. 1, she filed the aforesaid FIR.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 had taken place on 17-1-2000 at Bargarh. Thereafter both the husband and wife stayed together in the house of the petitioners at Taleher. The happy conjugal life lasted only for three months whereafter opposite party No. 2 started misbehaving with petitioner No. 1 and her other in-laws and in spite of best efforts, she did not mend her manners. She was arrogant and she refused to have conjugal relationship with her husband and maintained her relationship with her boy friends and often used to leave the house of her own. When these facts were confronted to her she got annoyed and left for her parental house in August, 2000. She insisted that petitioner No. 1 should take a separate house so that she would stay with him. Accordingly to save the marriage, petitioner No. 1 took a separate house at Taleher and opposite party No. 2 returned to him in November, 2000, but then her manners did not change. She became more adamant and tried to lead her life according to her own sweet will. She kept relationship with her boy friends and due to such fact the relationship between petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 became more strained. It is alleged that opposite party No. 2 was caught red handed by petitioner No. 1 while moving with her boy friends and added to that he also found some love letters from the possession of opposite party No. 2 written to her by her boy friends. On being questioned, opposite party No. 2 used to abuse him in filthy language. Thus the relation ship between the husband and wife became more and more strained leading to a break even point and ultimately opposite party No. 2 wife left her husband's house at Taleher for her parental house at Bargarh on 2nd May, 2002. In spite of best efforts of petitioner No. 1, opposite party No. 2 having refused to return to him, the former was constrained to file O. S. No.36 of 2001 before the Civil Judge (SD), Taleher praying for annulling the marriage and passing a decree of divorce. Opposite party No. 2 though received notice of the said suit chose not to appear and contest the same. Consequently she was set ex parte and by judgment dated 17-4-2002 the marriage was annulled and decree of divorce was passed. After lapse of almost three years, as stated earlier, on 5-10-2005 the aforesaid FIR was filed by opposite party No. 2. The petitioners who are accused in the aforesaid G. R. Case have approached this Court invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. with a prayer to quash the said FIR and so also the proceedings of G. R. Case No. 993/05 pending before the SDJM, Bargarh mainly on the ground that none of the incidents alleged, as would be evident from the FIR itself, did take place at Bargarh. As such neither the police at Bargarh nor the SDJM, Bargarh had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the FIR or the G. R. Case and that continuance of the case at Bargarh will amount to abuse of the process of law and will subject the petitioners to prejudice and harassment.

(3.) After receiving notice opposite party No. 2 has entered appearance and has repudiated the averments made by the petitioners. According Mr. Suraj Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 the offences alleged are continuous in nature and in consonance with the provisions of Section 178 (c) Cr. P.C., inasmuch as opposite party No. 2 is subjected to mental torture day in and day out by the petitioners and as such Bargarh police as well as the Court at Bargarh had jurisdiction to entertain the case.