(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing of ICC no. 83 of 2005 pending before the J. M. F. C. (Paradip), Kujang and also for quashing of g. R. Case No. 1884 of 2004 arising out of madhupatana P. S. Case No. 323 of 2004, pending before the S. D. J. M. , Sadar, Cuttack.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner, an employee of this Court, after the death of his first wife petitioner had an illicit relationship with one Nirmala Behera, D/o. Fakir Behera with a promise to marry her and kept sexual relationship with her which caused her to conceive and on the pretext of medical check up caused miscarriage without the knowledge of the lady and on coming to learn about that Nirmala had lodged an FIR at Madhupataria P. S. under section 313, IPC against the petitioner. Even thereafter petitioner prevailed upon Nirmala promising to marry her on 13-2-2005 and motivated her to bring Rs. 70,000/- from her father. On such amount being paid, it is stated that marriage of the petitioner with nirmala was solemnized at one Sarala temple on 13-2-2005 and at about 2. 30 p. m. on the very day, petitioner and Nirmala reached at a petrol pump at Sandhapur and sent information to the father of Nirmala to meet them there and petitioner further demanded Rs. 30,000/ -. As a result there was exchange of some hot words between the petitioner and his wife Nirmala. On getting such information father of Nirmala proceeded to the Petrol Pump and requested the petitioner to come to his house. Petitioner agreed and instructed the car driver to proceed towards their house. It was alleged that petitioner throttled and poison was forced inside mouth of Nirmala. Thereafter, she was taken to the Cuttack Medical where she died. In such circumstances, criminal proceedings under Sections 420/ 493/302, IPC were initiated against the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner in person has submitted that all criminal proceedings against him are liable to be quashed on three grounds namely, (a) proceedings have been initiated at a belated stage, i. e. after expiry of 71 days, (b) proceedings have been initiated because of malice against the petitioner and only to harass him by the complainant and (c) the evidence collected so far against the petitioner is not sufficient for his prosecution and therefore on these grounds the proceedings are liable to be quashed.