URMILA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) The facts in brief involved in this case are that G. R. Case No. 214 of 1989 corresponding to O. 258/97. Digapahandi P. S. Case No. 77 of 1989 was registered against the petitioner and the co-accused for the offences under Sections 498-A/34, I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Charge-sheet was filed on 30-6-1991 showing the petitioner as an absconder. it is not disputed at the Bar that the attendance of the petitioner could not be secured. Thus, the G.R. Case was spilitted and G. R. Case No. 214/A of 1989 against the petitioner was sent to the dormant file. So far as the co-accused is concerned, the trial of G. R. Case No. 214/89 is presently pending at the stage of hearing argument.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the case and she was wrongly shown as an absconder. He further states that in G. R. Case No. 214/89 since last about one year argument has not been heard because of non-posting of a Magistrate. He argues that from the evidence available in G. R. Case No. 214/89 there is no material evidence to support the allegation against the petitioner regarding demand of dowry and tort and, therefore, the proceeding against her be quashed or dropped. He contends that, alternatively, a date may be fixed when the petitioner shall surrender before the lower Court and the lower Court may be directed to call for the case record of G. R. Case No. 214/A of 1989, so that on account of non-availability of the case record hearing of the petitioner's bail petition need not be deffered.Learned Addl. Standing Counsel while strongly objecting to the aforesaid argument to quash the proceeding against the petitioner has, however, no objection to the alternative prayer made by the petitioner.