Bicky Ranjan Nayak vs Susana Behari

Dr. SanjeebKPanigrahi, J.

The Petitioner, in the present CRLMC, has made a prayer to quash the entire proceeding in ICC No.6 of 2021 pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C. (City), Cuttack for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294/ 341/ 506/ 509 of the I.P.C.

The brief fact of the case, in nutshell, is that the petitioner was working in Delhi where the opposite party contacted the petitioner over social media and befriended him at his work place. Thereafter, they had some friendly talk over social media occasionally till 2020. All of a sudden, the petitioner received summons to appear before the learned court on 23.08.2021. The petitioner came down all the way from Delhi to appear before the Court and was released on bail. The case is pending since 2021 with no further progress as the complainant never appeared in the said case. Though the petitioner and the opposite party were residing in Delhi, a false complaint was filed alleging that the opposite party blocked the accused person over social media and that he allegedly abused her and further alleged sending of offensive messages. The complainant further alleges that though she reported before the Mangalabag Police Station on 21.12.2020, no action was taken. Hence, she approached the DCP where the complaint was accepted but nothing was done. Therefore, the complainant approached the trial court. The learned trial court on these allegations took cognizance under Sections 294/ 341/ 506/ 509 of the IPC.

Hence, seeking the cognizance order to be quashed, the present CRLMC has been filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions, as borne out from the Written Note of Submissions:

ii) The entire case is false, fabricated, and has been instituted only to harass the petitioner. The true facts of the case are that the opposite party had approached the petitioner with a proposal for a relationship/marriage, which was rejected by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner blocked the opposite party on social media. The opposite party belongs to Cuttack, Odisha, and lodged the present case out of personal grudge and vengeance. Despite the passage of considerable time, no substantial progress has been made in the investigation till date.

iii) The petitioner further submits that allowing the case to proceed further would cause serious prejudice to him. The offences under Sections 341 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable in nature, while the remaining offences are non-compoundable. The entire allegations made by the opposite party are false, baseless, and devoid of any merit. Even assuming, without admitting, that any case is made out against the petitioner, the opposite party is interested only in continuing the proceedings and not in securing the ends of justice. The allegations have been made solely with the intention of harassing the petitioner and causing unnecessary hardship to him.

iv) The petitioner further submits that the present case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal^{11.1992 Supp (1) SCC 335}, wherein the Apex Court enumerated the categories of cases in which criminal proceedings may be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of law. The Hon’ble Court held that “where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention and instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and harassing the accused, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash such proceedings”.

vi) The petitioner also places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab^{33.(2014) 6 SCC 466}, wherein it was held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now corresponding provisions under BNSS), may quash criminal proceedings where continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and where quashing would secure the ends of Justice.

vii) In the present case, the allegations made against the petitioner are false, baseless, and motivated. The continuation of the criminal proceeding would serve no useful purpose and would only result in unnecessary harassment, prejudice, and abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, in view of the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court may be pleased to quash the impugned criminal proceeding in the interest of justice.

viii) The opposite party has also submitted an affidavit stating that she does not wish to proceed with the above-mentioned case. Therefore, the petition for quashing of the ICC case may be allowed, and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed. Otherwise, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and prejudice. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the petition in the interest of justice.

ix) It was, therefore, contended that the entire proceeding against the Petitioner may be quashed allowing the present CRLMC.

On the contrary, the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party made the following submissions:

ii) The Opposite Party has no objection if the 1CC Case No.6 of 2021 pending before the learned J.M.F.C (City), Cuttack, registered under Sections 294/ 341/506/ 509 of the I.P.C. is quashed by way of the present CRLMC. The Opposite Party swears this present Affidavit on her own without any coercion from any quarter.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party. Perused the CRLMC, the annexures thereto, the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party, and the case records.

The short question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether, in foregoing facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings in ICC No. 6 of 2021 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. (City), Cuttack, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, and whether the inherent power of this Court ought to be exercised to quash the said proceeding.

It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court is to be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution, and only where it is called for to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The parameters for exercise of such jurisdiction have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal(supra) wherein it was, inter alia, held that proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intent and are instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, or where the same are actuated by malice.

This Court has also had the benefit of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat(supra) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab(supra), both of which recognize that while heinous or serious offences involving mental depravity, or offences of a public nature affecting society at large, ought not ordinarily to be quashed merely on the ground of settlement between the parties, offences which are substantially private in nature, arising out of civil, matrimonial, or personal disputes between the parties, and which do not seriously impinge upon public peace or the collective conscience of society, may be quashed once the parties have arrived at an amicable resolution.

In the present case, the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are essentially personal and private in character, arising out of a soured relationship between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party over social media. The offences alleged, namely under Sections 294, 341, 506 and 509 of the I.P.C., are not offences of such a heinous or grave nature as would be classified as offences against the State or against society at large. Two of the said offences, namely under Sections 341 and 509 I.P.C., are, in fact, compoundable in nature under the Code, which itself is indicative of the legislative intent that such offences primarily affect the private interest of the parties concerned rather than the public at large.

It is also relevant to note that the Opposite Party who is the complainant and the person allegedly aggrieved by the acts of the Petitioner has filed a categorical and unequivocal affidavit before this Court stating that she has moved on from the incident which led to the filing of the complaint, that she does not wish to pursue ICC No. 6 of 2021 any further. She has no further claim, of any nature whatsoever, against the Petitioner arising out of the present dispute. The said affidavit has been sworn voluntarily and without any coercion from any quarter, a fact which has not been controverted before this Court.

It is also noted that the complaint itself has remained stagnant since 2021, with no substantial progress in the proceeding and non-appearance of the complainant before the trial court, which lends credence to the submission that the Opposite Party has genuinely lost interest in pursuing the matter. In fact, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the prosecution alive.

In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that compelling the parties to undergo a full-fledged trial, when the complainant herself has expressed her unwillingness to prosecute the matter further and has settled her grievance, would serve no purpose except to prolong hostility and cause unnecessary hardship, harassment, and wastage of judicial time to both the parties as well as to the Court. Further, Continuation of such proceedings, in the given facts, would only be an exercise in futility and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

This Court, however, clarifies that the quashing of the present proceeding is confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, which is essentially based on the voluntary and unequivocal affidavit of settlement filed by the Opposite Party, and shall not be treated as a precedent for quashing proceedings involving offences of a serious or heinous nature or those impinging on the public interest, merely on the ground of compromise between the parties.

In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled position of law, this Court is satisfied that this is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed. The entire proceeding in ICC No. 6 of 2021, pending before the learned J.M.F.C. (City), Cuttack, arising out of allegations under Sections 294/341/506/509 of the I.P.C., including the order of cognizance and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed qua the Petitioner.

The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.