PRASANTA KUMAR PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State, so also learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2-Victim.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this CRLMC under Sec. 482 of the Crimial P.C. to quash the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai in G.R.No. 513 of 2009 taking cognizance against him under Sections 448/493 of the I.P.C.

(3.) It appears that the F.I.R. was lodged by the father-in-law of the opposite party No. 2-victim that he was his daughter-in-law in a compromising position with one unknown person, who was later identified to be the present petitioner. Police investigated the same and filed charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 448/493 of the I.P.C. The victim in her statement recorded by the Police during the investigation stated that the aforesaid allegation has been made being actuated with mala fide and in order to defame her by her father-in-law in the absence of her husband who lives in abroad.