Gurei Barik vs State of Orissa

S. K. SAHOO, J.Â

In this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Gurei Barik who is the wife of accused Ramesh Chandra Barik has prayed to quash the

impugned order dated 25.09.2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Narsinghpur in G.R. Case No.105 of 2004 in taking cognizance of the offences

under sections 376/506/109 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against her. The said case arises out of Narsinghpur P.S. Case No.67

of 2004. Â

 It appears from the first information report lodged by the victim before the officer in charge, Narsinghpur Police Station, Cuttack on 29.05.2004 that

on 28.05.2004 accused Ramesh Chandra Barik committed rape on her and also threatened her not to disclose the incident before anybody. The

allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner who is the wife of accused Ramesh Chandra Barik took the victim from her house to her bed

room and left that place whereafter the accused Ramesh Chandra Barik committed the crime. The victim in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement has stated that

about 8 to 10 days prior to the date of occurrence, she had borrowed a sum of Rs.50/- from the accused Ramesh Chandra Barik and on the date of

occurrence while she was sitting on the varandah of one Gaya Barik, the petitioner came there and told her that co-accused Ramesh Chandra Barik

was calling her. The victim accompanied the petitioner and the petitioner left the victim near the bed room asking the victim to proceed ahead and

thereafter she left that spot and when the victim entered into the room, the crime was committed by accused Ramesh Chandra Barik.Â

It is contended by Mr. Bhabani Sankar Mishra, learned counsel appearing the petitioner that the main allegation is against co-accused Ramesh Barik

and due to previous dispute between the parties, the case has been foisted against the petitioner merely she happens to be the wife of main accused.

He placed the F.I.R. lodged by the victim as well as 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim.

 Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner being the wife of the main accused facilitated the

commission of offences inasmuch as she called the victim to the house for which the crime was committed.Â

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, since the main allegation is against accused Ramesh Chandra

Barik and the only allegation is that the petitioner called the victim on the date of occurrence and there are discrepancies in the statement of the victim

relating to the participation of the petitioner in the alleged crime and there is no clinching material against the petitioner relating to abetment of the

offences committed by co-accused, I am of considered view that the continuance of the proceeding against petitioner would be abuse of process and

therefore, exercising my inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C., I am inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner and direct that the

impugned order dated 25.09.2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Narsinghpur in G.R. Case No.105 of 2004 so far as the petitioner Gurei Barik is

concerned, stands quashed. The proceeding shall continue in respect of accused Ramesh Chandra Barik. With the aforesaid observation the CRLMC

stands  disposed of.Â