Dr. Bibhu Prasad Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Anr.

G. Satapathy, J.

The instant revision is directed against the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the learned JMFC (Cog. Taking), Keonjhar in GR Case No.709 of 2025 taking cognizance of offences punishable U/S.85/108/3(5) of BNS.

The short facts as involved in this case are that the petitioner and the daughter of the informant were the husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on CRLREV No.24 of 2026 14.07.2024 as per their caste and custom, but subsequent to the marriage, the petitioner allegedly started subjecting the daughter of the informant to torture and cruelty and it is alleged that when the torture meted to the daughter of the informant becomes unbearable, she committed suicide. An FIR being filed on this incident was registered against the petitioner and his parents vide Harichandanpur PS Case No.130 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable U/S.80(1)/85/103(1)/3(5) of the BNS r/w Sec.4 of DP Act paving the way for commencement of investigation, in the course of which witnesses were examined, materials were collected, but finding sufficient materials, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and his parents for commission of offence U/Ss.85/108/3(5) of the BNS.

Soon after receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned JMFC, Keonjhar by the impugned order took cognizance of offence U/S. 85/108/3(5) of the BNS and thereafter, issued process in the form of NBWAs against the petitioner and his parents, but the revision-petitioner has only challenged the order taking cognizance of offence. CRLREV No.24 of 2026

In the course of hearing Ms. Adyasha Das, learned Amicus Curiae by taking this Court through the statement of the witnesses and charge-sheet, submits that there is in fact no material to suggest that the petitioner has ever subjected the deceased to torture and cruelty, rather all the allegation appearing against the petitioner is omnibus in nature and the deceased having committed suicide out of her own volition, the petitioner cannot be held liable for abetment of suicide. Ms. Das, learned Amicus Curiae further submits that there is in fact no material available to the Court to issue NBWA against the petitioner and at the first instance, the Court taking cognizance offence should have issued summon, instead of issuing warrant and thereby the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, (Cog Taking), Keonjhar being illegal is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, Ms. Das, prays to set aside the impugned order.

After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute about the solemnization of marriage of the petitioner with the deceased on 14.07.2024 and the deceased committing suicide on 26.07.2025 which is admittedly within seven years of marriage. Besides, not only the witnesses have stated against the petitioner for subjecting the deceased to torture and cruelty, but also the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and his parents for offences U/S.85/108/3(5) of the BNS. No doubt it is advanced for the petitioner that he has got no role in the commission of suicide of the deceased, but Sec.117 of BSA which corresponds to Sec.113(A) of the Evidence Act provides presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman and such provision lays down that when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to CRLREV No.24 of 2026 cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. In this case, not only the petitioner is wanted in the present FIR, but also the deceased had lodged another FIR against the petitioner vide Nandipada PS Case No.46 of 2025 for commission of offence U/S.85/ 296/ 115(2)/ 118(1)/ 351(2)/ 3(5) of BNS r/w Sec.4 of DP Act. Taking cognizance of offence is a judicial Act, but such judicial Act has to be performed in accordance with the law and Sec.190 of CrPC/210 of BNSS provides power for a magistrate to take cognizance of offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitutes such offence or upon a police report of such facts or upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed. 6. On a careful perusal of the FIR, Charge-sheet, Statement of the witnesses U/S.180 of BNSS as available in the present case, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order by which the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of offences. In the aforesaid facts and CRLREV No.24 of 2026 circumstances and on consideration of the materials placed on record keeping in view the rival submission, this Court does not find any merit in the revision and thereby, such revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result the CRLREV stands dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC (Cog. Taking), Keonjhar is hereby, confirmed. This Court places on record appreciation for Ms. Adyasha Das, the learned Amicus Curiae for the valuable support given by her to this Court in disposing the present Criminal Revision.