Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4893 of 2024 along with CRLMC Nos.4596 and 4600 of 2024 (Petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for quashing of the order dated 17.07.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur in G.R. Case No.1035 of 2023 arising out of Ainthapali P.S. Case No.209 of 2023) Suresh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (in CRLMC No.4893 of 2024) Bulbul Agarwal (In CRLMC No.4596 of 2024) Ramawtar Agrawal (in CRLMC No.4600 of 2024) …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devashis Panda, Adv. Along with associate. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, Adv. (for O.P. No.2). CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-21.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-15.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. Since the issues raised in all these CRLMCs referred to above involve common question of fact and law, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 2 convenience and effective adjudication, CRLMC No.4893 of 2024 is treated as the lead case. 2. The Petitioner, in CRLMC No.4893 of 2024, has assailed the order dated 17.07.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur in G.R. Case No.1035 of 2023 arising out of Ainthapali P.S. Case No.209 of 2023 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 341/ 294/ 307/ 323/ 354/ 500/ 509/ 406/ 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against them and issuing summons for their appearance in the said case. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) FIR story is that the informant’s marriage was negotiated with Rahul Agrawal and held on 12.07.2021 at Mayfair Hotel, Raipur (C.G.) at her in-laws’ insistence alleging that all the accused persons had compelled her father who had booked a hotel as per his budget to conduct the marriage in a 5-star hotel and at the ‘roka’ ceremony they had demanded dowry in form of cash and jewellery and had asked him to bear all expenses of marriage. After the marriage, she resided at her marital home at Thoothukkudi, Tamil Nadu where she was allegedly subjected by her husband and her in-laws’ including the Petitioners with dowry demand, mental and physical torture and domestic abuse, obstruction of her fundamental right to perform religious practices, abetment of suicide, sexual harassment, was wrongfully restrained from leaving her marital home. It is also Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 3 alleged that despite being very well-to-do and having several house-helps, her parents-in-law and co-sister-in-law compelled her to perform the daily household chores while other family members kept mum. When she informed them about this fact, intentionally she was made to do extra work so that they could have a reason to abuse her when she could not complete the works assigned to her. Gradually she was subjected to physical beating and being dissatisfied with dowry given, they were demanding more dowry in the name of festival gifts and other events. She also suspected that they were practicing black magic. Her husband told her after the incident that all this could have been avoided if her father paid Rs.20,00,000/- to him and also continued to give dowry after marriage. She has stated that on 30.04.2023 she decided to leave her in-laws’ house but was restrained from leaving with the taxi she called. When her family members intervened, she was sent in a car to the house of her relative at Tiruppur but was prevented from taking her clothes, jewellery, ID cards, wallet, debit and credit cards and was also not given any travel expenses. (ii) Suresh Kumar Agarwal and his daughter-in-law Khushboo Agarwal w/o Akash Agarwal Petitioners in CRLMC No.4893 of 2024 are her husband’s father’s elder brother and his son’s wife and both reside in a different house from that of where the informant was residing with her husband and mother-in-law in Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 4 the same complex at New Colony Thoothukudi, P.S.: Thoothukkudi South, Tamil Nadu. (iii) Apart from the Informant’s general allegations against these Petitioners of having injured, harassed and made dowry demands to her, she has specifically alleged that Suresh Agarwal was a characterless person who used to harass the Informant by talking in inappropriate manner like reason for not having a child for last 2 years or if her husband was doing his duties properly or not and had tried to touch her inappropriately and claimed that nobody can touch him being a man of influence with lots of money and can escape the law after all wrongdoings. She has also specifically alleged that Khushboo was never happy with her marriage to Rahul and had once pushed her down the stairs after a heated discussion resulting injuries like a fracture of leg and other bruises. Alleging that Khushboo had some attraction towards her husband and was quite unhappy for not getting any attention from him and had scolded her husband Rahul harshly causing him to have a panic attack and be hospitalized. (iv) Ramawatar Agrawal, aged about 70 years, the Petitioner in CRLMC No.4600 of 2024 is another brother of her husband’s father and ordinarily a resident of Patwari Bhawan, Station Road, P.S.: Paschim Midnapore, Midnapore, West Bengal. He alleged to have on 30.04.2023 concocted a story of her late father- in-law’s soul having possessed her sister-in-law Bulbul’s body Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 5 and, on such pretext, had asked all her other in-laws’ to forcibly throw out the photograph of Informant’s religious God. When she refused, her mother-in-law became very angry and started abusing her verbally while the Petitioner who stays separately at Medinapore, West Bengal had slapped her twice on her face and attempted to kill her by grabbing her neck and pressing it saying that her God was the reason for all bad things happening to the family, but, she somehow or other escaped and threatened to go to the police. Therefore, he had called the Informant’s father and gave him two options either for her to throw away her God or to be taken away by him from her in-laws’ house. (v) Bulbul Agarwal, the Petitioner in CRLMC No. 4596 of 2024 is d/o Suresh Ku. Agarwal and w/o Hemant Agarwal r/o: Villas 6 & 7, Silver Lane, Dullapally, Kompally, P.S.: Pet Basheerabad, Hyderabad, Telengana is the married cousin sister-in-law of the informant. General allegations have been made against her of having with the other in-laws’ caused her injuries, harassment and making of dowry demands. The specific specific allegations against her is that that on 30.04.2023 she was at Thoothukkudi and was possessed by the soul of Informant’s father-in-law. (vi) The learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur vide the impugned order dated 17.07.2024 after receipt of charge-sheet vide C.S No.146 dated 16.07.2024 under Sections 498-A/ 341/ 294/ 307/ 323/ 354/ 500/ 509/ 406/ 34 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the accused persons, named, Rahul Agrawal, Suresh Agrawal, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 6 Sarita Devi Agrawal, Khusubu Agrawal, Bulbul Agrawal and Ramwatar Agrawal held that prima facie case is well established under Sections 498-A/ 341/ 294/ 307/ 323/ 354/ 500/ 509/ 406/ 34 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P Act against the accused persons. Hence, the cognizance of the aforesaid offences was taken and summon was issued for appearance on 20.08.2024. (vii) Being aggrieved, the Petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by way of the present CRLMCs seeking appropriate relief. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners respectfully and earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The investigation neither discloses any demand by them either during the premarriage negotiations or thereafter having been celebrated during the Covid wave nor have they been established even prima facie thereby constituting any offence or making out any case against these Petitioners so as to warrant taking of cognizance and issue of process against them. (ii) In the matters like the present case when relatives are not residing in the same house where the alleged victim resides, the courts should not stop consideration by merely looking into the question where the accused is a person falling within the ambit of the expression ‘relative’ for the purpose of Section 498-A of the IPC, but should also consider whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated version solely to implicate such person(s) to pressurize the main accused. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 7 (iii) The allegations of dowry torture against the Petitioners are perverse, vague, fabricated and have been made with malicious intent. The allegations of Informant having been subjected to cruelty and mental and physical torture on account of demand of dowry by these Petitioners has not been made out or has been established by the investigation and, therefore, issuance of process stands vitiated and liable to be interfered with. (iv) Every harassment does not amount to "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC and harassment simpliciter not being "cruelty" for the purpose thereof. It is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property, etc. that amounts to "cruelty" punishable under Section 498-A IPC as has been settled by the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao1. In the instant case, the allegations of demand of dowry and torture, therefore, by these Petitioners having been superficially made against them in a perfunctory and baseless manner being general and omnibus allegations and not satisfying the test laid down in the decision above. Therefore, the impugned order issuing process is liable to be interfered with. (v) All the allegations of physical torture meted out to Informant are omnibus and the basic ingredients of the offences under Sections 341, 294, 307, 323, 509 and 354 of the IPC have not been 1 (2008) 15 SCC 582 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 8 established against them in the investigation. The informant has even chosen to give her address as being within Ainthapalli P.S. with oblique intent and has made allegations that are fabricated and concocted only to harass these Petitioners by involving them in a criminal case because of their marital relationship with her. (vi) There is no shred of material for establishing the offence under Section 500 of the IPC having been committed by these Petitioners to warrant summoning them for that offence which is not made out prima facie. (vii) The Petitioners having been named as accused because of their relationship with informant’s husband and so far as the incident where specific role has been attributed to them, their involvement having not been established by independent witnesses and although they reside in the same neighborhood but having separate residential accommodation, their implication in the absence of any tangible material to support allegations made against them. (viii) Parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of the court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised as has been held Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 9 in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2 and followed thereafter in a catena of decisions. (ix) In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors.3, it has been held that “the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out and though criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of process of court yet the Court will not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice and should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and such relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out”. (x) In Neelu Chopra & Anr. v. Bharti4; the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the parents’-in-law holding that although there was some reference to the accused persons the allegations against them were general and vague as in the instance case against the present Petitioners. (xi) In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr.5 also proceedings were quashed holding that allegations required to be specific and disclosure of active involvement of the accused was to be made. 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 3 (2000) 5 SCC 207 4 (2009) 10 SCC 184 5 (2012) 10 SCC 741 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 10 (xii) In Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.6 It has been held that the Court has to be careful in summoning relatives and only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against them and their merely being named would not be enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role. (xiii) In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Petitioners pray to allow their prayer. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2: 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 earnestly made the following submission in support of his contentions:- (i) The present the petitioners named Suresh Kumar Agrawal and Khushboo Agarwal have challenged the order of cognizance dated 17.07.2024 taken by the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Samabalpur for the offences under Sections 498-A, 341, 294, 307, 323, 354, 500, 509, 406 / 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act, mainly on the ground that there are no incriminating materials available on record to fasten any liability against them and prima-facie no existence of a case against them. (ii) As law is well settled that, there is a limited scope of interference of the High Court, while adjudicating the matter 6 (2014) 16 SCC 551 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 11 under Section 482 of Cr. P.C, as because the position of law is undisputed that, at the time of taking cognizance and issuing process against the accused persons, the Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has only to be prima-facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. it is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion on the merits and demerits of the case. (iii) The law is also well settled that, ‘taking cognizance’ means cognizance of an offence and not of offender. Once, the Magistrate takes the cognizance of an offence then it is the duty to find out the real offender. The aforesaid process itself personifies taking cognizance is a serious matter which presupposes a condition whereby the Magistrate has to apply his judicious mind. Any Magistrate of the first class, any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in that behalf under Sub-section (2) of Section 190 may take cognizance of an offence upon receiving the complaint of facts which constitute the offence, upon a police report of said facts, upon information received from any person other than the police officer or upon his own knowledge that said offence has been committed. Sub-Section (2) itself authorizes the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance under Sub- section (1) of said offence as are within his competence to enquire into or trial. Under Section 190 CRPC, discretion has Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 12 been casted upon the Magistrate concerned to act judicially keeping in account the facts of a particular case as well as law on the said subject. Section 190 CRC is a starting point for taking appropriate judicial action as the Magistrate under said Section has to apply his mind on the motion so set up in Sub- clauses (a)/ (b)/(c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 190 of the CrPC. (iv) In the present case, the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur did not exceed the power vested on him under the law. In the order dated 17.07.2024 while taking cognizance, the learned S.D.J.M, Sambalpur perused the documents available on record, FIR and statements of the Informant, so also the witnesses of this case. It is crystal clear that, there is no illegality in the cognizance order dated 17.07.2024 as the learned S.D.J.M, Sambalpur before taking cognizance, perused the relevant materials on record. Therefore, the present application of the petitioners for quashing the cognizance order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, the present application filed by the Petitioners may be dismissed. (v) This Criminal Case in hand is an inhuman and brutal assault on the Informant-Opposite Party No.2, which has been committed by the all accused persons- the In-laws of the Informant- Opp. Party No.2 who are jointly staying under one roof i.e. At-89/A/2, New Colony, P.S- South Police Station, Thoothukudi, Tamilnadu and they have committed the crime, thereby attempting to commit murder with a common Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 13 intention (particularly the present petitioner No.l named Suresh Kumar Agrawal, who has played the main role), whereas the allegation in the Charge Sheet is that, "Suresh Kumar Agrawal is the most characterless person in the family. She(informant) was not having a child for last years, the said Suresh Kumar Agrawal always used to ask her the reason of not having a child and her husband is able to perform his duty or not. He always used to talk inappropriate manner and tried to touch her body. He always used to claim that, he has lots of money and influence and also nobody can touch him and he can escape the law after wrong doings". (vi) Though specific roles has been played by the present Petitioners more particularly the petitioner No.2- Khushboo Agrawal had played the active role to commit murder, but all these are done with common intension only to see that the informant to be tortured both mentally and physically vis-à-vis attempted to kill her. (vii) The informant-Opp. Party No.2 is a qualified girl having MBA Degree and was studying in a highly reputed Institute in India. Before her marriage, when she was with her father, she was leading a self-sufficient and independent life style. After she was given marriage, she has to stay in her in-laws house at Thoothukkudi, Tamilnadu. She was forced to compromise of her above freedom of life. She was forced to confine herself in Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 14 the narrow minded proximity of her in-laws. She was tortured all through since the day of her marriage. (viii) The background and relationship of the present accused petitioners and about his specific role as played for committing the crime, which are mentioned here: Suresh Kumar Agrawal- present petitioner No.1 (Father-in-law) living in joint family and has committed the crime who mentally and physically tortured and tried to outrage the modesty of the informant- Opp. Party No.2 by offering sexual relationship and by touching inappropriately on several occasions. The Petitioner No.1 had also tried to kill her upon opposing the same by the Informant. Khushboo Agrawal- Present Petitioner No.2 (Wife of Akash Agrawal, Sister-in-law) who is also living in joint family and has committed the serious crime i.e. attempting to murder the Informant- Opp. Party No.2. The petitioner No. 2, the Petitioner No.1 along with mother in law- Sarita Devi Agarwal, always demanded for more dowry, for which they tortured the informant- Opp. Party No. 2, which gradually converted to physical beating. Once the Petitioner No.2 pushed the Informant down the stairs due to non fulfilment of her demands, for which the Opp. Party No.2 has sustained severe injuries like fracture in the leg and other bruises, for which she has gone through a depression for this act of the Petitioner No.2. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 15 (ix) The accused persons-present petitioners had forcibly restrained the informant-Opp.Party No.2 from leaving their house on the said day for ill intention. However, on intervention of the family members of the informant-Opp. Party No.2, they released the informant- who without carrying any of belongings i.e. Cloth, Jewellery, Streedhan, ID Cards/ Wallet, forced to leave the house not even some petty money for her travel expenses. (x) As per the allegation and materials available on FIR as well as Charge sheet, the present Petitioners - Khushboo Agrawal and Suresh Agrawal, as they are the main culprit along with husband and others, for the entire period of during her stay and particularly the thing happened on 30.04.2023, the present Petitioners started abusing the informant-Opp. Party No.2 in filthy languages and shouted that such girl (informant-Opp. Party No.2) should not be even alive and tried cause harm to her life. (xi) During the investigation the I.O of the case has seized on DVD containing conversation between Rahul Kumar Agrawal and Sunil Agrawal regarding sexual question asked by the Suresh Kumar Agarwal-Petitioner No.1 and as per the statements of the other witnesses such as Minakshi Mishra, Alka Shrama and Phula Gudia they all have stated before the police that, the petitioner No. 1 used to sexually harassed the Opp.Party No.2 by touching inappropriately and asking sexual questions. He Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 16 further threaten the Informant for dire consequence as the petitioner No.2 has lot of money and nobody can touch him. So, the Offences under Sections 498-A / 341 / 294 / 307 / 323 / 354 / 500 / 406/509 and 34 of IPC with other allied offences under IPC are well made out along with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. (xii) The learned S.D.J.M, Sambalpur has rightly taken cognizance of offences against the accused persons and the petitioner is not eligible and should not be granted with any kind of protection / relief from this Court. Hence, this CRLMC Application is liable to be dismissed. (xiii) Moreover, the allegations of attempting to murder and outraging the modesty of the informant against the petitioners can be found in the FIR, as well as in the statements of the witnesses and Charge Sheet, which shows that, the involvement of present petitioners, prima facie, subjected to cruelty, outraging the modesty and attempting to kill the Informant/ Opp. Party No.2 of such a nature as is contemplated under Section 498-A, 354, 500, 509 and 307 of the IPC and other offenses. Therefore, prima facie case is well made out against the petitioners. The present petitioners and other Co-accused persons are staying together in the same house At- 89/A/2, New Colony, P.S- South Police Station, Thoothukudi, Tamilnadu, though they have business at west Bengal. In order Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 17 to escape from the criminal liabilities they have taken a false stand that, they are staying separately. (xiv) The present accused-petitioner No.2 tried to kill the informant Opp. Party No.2 by using criminal force on her. Therefore, the very ingredients of Sections 307 I.P.C along with other Sections of IPC as per the FIR and Charge sheet are well made out and against the present petitioners, who played specific role of overact in this case. Hence, the order of cognizance has been rights taken and need not to be interfered with. (xv) In this connection, in order to substantiate the allegations, the I.O. has examined the witnesses namely (1) Trishna Berlia (Complainant), (2) Sunil Kumar Agrawal (Father of the informant -Opp. Party No.2), (3) Vishes Berlia (brother of the informant -Opp. Party No.2), (4) Tilip, s/o. Mahesh Kumar, Thirupur, Tamilnadu, (5) Mudit Jain, r/o. Thirupur, Tamilnadu, who has corroborated the allegations made by the informant - Opp. Party No.2 in the FIR and these are available in the Charge sheet which are to be testified in course of trial after the Quashing application is dismissed. (xvi) That apart I.O. has seized various pieces of evidence i.e. (1) 64GB SanDisk Pen drive containing marriage ceremony photos of Trishna & Rahul Marriage ceremony, (2)Medical card of Trishna Berlia, (3) Medical Test of Trishna Berlia immediately after the occurrence at Sambalpur, (4) one compact DVD containing the photographs and video of jewelleries at the time Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 18 of marriage, (5) details of jewellery bills of Trishna Berlia (6)one compact DVD containing conversation between Rahul Agrawal and Sunil Agrawal regarding demand of money by Rahul Agrawal and conversation between Sunil Agrawal and Ramawatar Agrawal. (xvii) Further the witnesses namely Phula Gudia, Trupti Sharma, Avatar Sharma, Meenakshi Mishra in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC statements, have stated about the torture given to informant -Opp. Party No.2, witnessed by them during their stay at matrimonial house of Trishna at the time she sustained a fracture caused by Khusbu Agrawal the co-sister-in-law. (xviii) On 30.05.23 Rahul Agrawal with one Ajay Agrawal admitted before the Ainthapali police (I.O.) about the return of the Stridhan property of Trishna Agrawal in their possession and custody and assured to give its return. But, later on they concealed and refused to return the Stridhan articles. (xix) On 17.06.2023 the I.O. went to visit the place of occurrence and for recovery of the Stridhan Property' i.e. the Gold, Diamond and costly Jewelleries presented to Opp. Party No.2- informant - Trishna at the time of marriage but Rahul and his family did not cooperate and denied to give its recovery for which an additional section for commission of offence under Section 406 of IPC was added by the IO and the aforesaid fact has been clearly mentioned by the IO in the charge sheet. So the present Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 19 Accused Petitioners along with other accused persons are jointly and severally liable for commission of the crime, as such they are they are liable to face to trial as per the settled position of law. (xx) Hence, it is submitted that the CRLMCs Application are liable to be dismissed. (xxi) In view of the above submissions, it is contended that the present CRLMCs are liable to be dismissed. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. Perusal of the records and heard the submissions of the parties. 7. The jurisprudential foundation underlying the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. rests upon a delicate constitutional equilibrium between two equally sacrosanct principles of criminal justice administration. On the one hand lies the fundamental obligation of the Court to protect individual liberty against frivolous, vindictive or malicious prosecution; on the other hand rests the equally compelling societal interest that legitimate allegations disclosing commission of cognizable offences must ordinarily be permitted to proceed through the legally ordained process of investigation and trial. The inherent power of the High Court is, therefore, neither intended to function as an appellate forum conducting a meticulous evaluation of evidence at the threshold stage, nor as a jurisdiction designed to prematurely terminate prosecutions Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 20 merely because the accused are able to project an arguable defence. The power exists to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of Court; but equally, it cannot be exercised in a manner that stifles a genuine prosecution at its inception and thereby substitutes judicial suspicion for evidentiary adjudication. 8. The expression “taking cognizance” itself has acquired a distinct connotation within criminal jurisprudence. Cognizance is taken not of an offender but of an offence. At such stage, the learned Magistrate is only required to satisfy himself/herself as to whether the materials placed before him prima facie disclose commission of offences necessitating the commencement of judicial proceedings. The law does not require the Magistrate to meticulously weigh the evidentiary sufficiency for conviction. If such an exercise were insisted upon at the threshold, the very object of criminal investigation and trial would stand defeated. The stage of cognizance is therefore fundamentally different from the stage of appreciation of evidence after trial. The Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., must remain conscious of this distinction or else the extraordinary jurisdiction is converted into a forum for conducting a pre-trial adjudication. 9. It is equally well settled that matrimonial prosecutions, particularly those arising under Section 498-A IPC and allied provisions, demand a careful and balanced judicial approach. The Court cannot remain oblivious to the repeated concern expressed by the Supreme Court regarding exaggerated implication of multiple relatives of the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 21 husband in matrimonial discord. Criminal law ought not to become an instrument of coercive over-implication whereby every relative, irrespective of proximity, participation or involvement, is mechanically arrayed as an accused merely because of familial association. The criminal justice cannot permit prosecution founded solely upon generalized suspicion, emotional hostility or sweeping omnibus allegations bereft of specific attribution. The caution administered in Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors(supra), Neelu Chopra vs Bharti(supra) and Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of UP (supra) emerges from this broader concern that criminal prosecution itself carries serious civil consequences, social stigma and psychological hardship and, therefore, distant relatives cannot be compelled to undergo criminal trial in the absence of tangible material indicating active complicity. 10. However, the salutary principle evolved against indiscriminate implication of relatives in matrimonial prosecutions cannot be stretched into a rigid formula mandating quashment merely because the accused happens to be a collateral relation or resides separately from the matrimonial home. Criminal liability is not determined by the degree of relationship or place of residence, but by the nature of participation disclosed from the prosecution materials. The law does not recognize any automatic immunity in favour of distant or separately residing relatives where specific allegations indicating active involvement in the alleged offences are prima facie available. In the same vein, courts must remain vigilant against the tendency of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 22 roping in every member of the matrimonial family on the basis of vague, sweeping and omnibus allegations lacking factual specificity. The judicial task, therefore, lies in carefully distinguishing between allegations which are merely generalized and ornamental in nature and those which disclose concrete overt acts attributable to particular accused persons. 11. Where the allegations are bald, inherently improbable and unsupported by any specific role, continuation of criminal proceedings may amount to abuse of process. Conversely, where the FIR, witness statements and charge-sheet materials reveal individualized accusations disclosing active participation, the prosecution cannot be interdicted at the threshold merely on the ground of separate residence or distant relationship. The determinative test is whether the materials, taken at their face value, prima facie establish a nexus between the accused and the commission of the alleged offences. Once such foundational allegations exist, the defence of exaggeration, falsity or separate residence necessarily falls within the domain of evidentiary appreciation during trial and cannot ordinarily furnish a ground for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Tested on the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the present case does not fall within the category of cases where allegations are entirely vague, bald or inherently improbable. A careful reading of the FIR, the statements recorded during investigation and the charge-sheet materials reveals that the allegations against the present Petitioners are not confined merely to Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 23 stereotyped assertions of dowry demand or routine allegations of harassment. Rather, distinct roles and individualized accusations have been attributed to the respective Petitioners. 12. So far as Petitioner Suresh Kumar Agrawal is concerned, the allegations transcend ordinary matrimonial discord and include assertions of repeated inappropriate sexual remarks, indecent conduct, physical advances amounting to outraging modesty, intimidation, participation in acts of cruelty and assault, and threats administered by invoking his alleged financial influence and social stature. The allegations attributed to him are neither casual nor omnibus in character. Similarly, specific allegations have been levelled against Petitioner Khushboo Agrawal alleging that she physically pushed the Informant down the stairs causing fracture and bodily injuries. The prosecution has also attributed participation to the Petitioners in the alleged acts occurring on 30.04.2023 involving physical assault, restraint, intimidation and humiliation connected with the Informant’s religious practices. Such allegations, whether ultimately established or otherwise, undeniably constitute specific factual assertions requiring evidentiary examination during trial. 13. The argument advanced by the Petitioners that they were residing separately and therefore could not have participated in the alleged acts constitute essentially a disputed question of fact incapable of conclusive determination in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court exercising inherent jurisdiction cannot embark upon a factual enquiry requiring appreciation of rival evidence, examination Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 24 of residential arrangements, scrutiny of interpersonal interactions or adjudication upon the truthfulness of competing narratives. Such matters squarely belong to the domain of trial. At this stage, the Court is obligated to proceed on the basis of the prosecution version as disclosed from the materials collected during investigation without entering into comparative evaluation of defence pleas. 14. Significantly, the prosecution case does not appear to rest solely upon uncorroborated allegations of the Informant. The charge-sheet reveals that the Investigating Officer examined multiple witnesses who are stated to have supported the allegations relating to cruelty, physical assault, inappropriate conduct and dowry-related harassment. The prosecution further claims seizure of electronic evidence including recorded conversations, DVDs and other contemporaneous materials allegedly connected with the occurrence. The existence of such investigative materials prima facie lends a degree of factual substratum to the prosecution case. Whether such materials are ultimately admissible, credible or sufficient for conviction are matters that can only be tested through the judicial process of trial, cross- examination and evidentiary scrutiny. At the stage of cognizance, the Court is neither expected nor permitted to undertake a microscopic dissection of their evidentiary values. 15. The submission that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 307, 354, 509, 406 and other allied provisions are not made out also cannot be accepted at this stage. The FIR and the materials collected during investigation do contain allegations touching upon physical Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 25 assault, sexual misconduct, wrongful restraint, intimidation, withholding of Stridham articles and acts allegedly endangering the safety and dignity of the Informant. The Court must remain conscious that at the stage of cognizance, the standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but merely existence of prima facie materials disclosing commission of offences. In order to insist upon meticulous proof or conclusive establishment of each ingredient at this preliminary stage would amount to collapsing the distinction between investigation, cognizance and trial which is wholly impermissible in criminal jurisprudence. 16. The criminal law proceeds upon the basic principle that truth is best discovered through the adversarial process of trial. The judicial process recognizes that allegations may ultimately culminate either in conviction or acquittal; however, the possibility of acquittal cannot by itself justify premature termination of prosecution when the foundational allegations disclose triable issues. Quashing jurisdiction is therefore reserved for exceptional cases where continuation of proceedings would itself amount to manifest injustice. The present case, viewed holistically, does not satisfy such exceptional threshold. 17. The Court must also bear in mind that allegations relating to domestic cruelty, emotional abuse, coercive dowry practices and gendered humiliation often occur within the privacy of the matrimonial sphere where direct independent evidence may not always be readily available at the inception. The law therefore does not demand impossible standards of proof at the threshold stage. Simultaneously, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 26 courts are equally required to remain vigilant against misuse of criminal law through exaggerated implication. The judicial task is therefore one of calibrated balance rather than mechanical acceptance or outright rejection. In the present case, the existence of specific allegations coupled with supporting investigative materials tilts the balance against exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing. 18. The submission of the Petitioners that the allegations are motivated, vindictive or exaggerated may indeed constitute a plausible defence. However, criminal jurisprudence consistently recognizes that defence pleas ordinarily cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. unless the defence material is of sterling and unimpeachable character completely demolishing the prosecution case on its face. No such exceptional circumstance is demonstrated in the present case. The defence sought to be projected by the Petitioners would necessarily require appreciation of disputed facts and evaluation of evidence, which is impermissible within the limited parameters of inherent jurisdiction. 19. The impugned order further reveals that the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur had perused the FIR, statements of witnesses and the charge-sheet materials before taking cognizance. The order cannot therefore be characterized as mechanical or passed without application of judicial mind. At the stage of issuance of process, elaborate reasoning akin to a judgment after trial is neither contemplated nor required. Once the materials placed before the Magistrate prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences, the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 27 Magistrate is justified in proceeding against the accused persons. The sufficiency or reliability of such materials remains a matter for trial. 20. The administration of criminal justice cannot be reduced to a ritualistic exercise of terminating prosecutions at the threshold merely because the accused dispute the allegations. Equally, the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be transformed into a forum for adjudicating factual innocence before evidence is tested. Judicial restraint in exercising quashing jurisdiction is therefore not a matter of procedural technicality but a substantive requirement flowing from the constitutional architecture of fair criminal process. Courts must guard against both extremes blind the continuation of patently malicious prosecution and premature interdiction of legitimate criminal proceedings. 21. In the ultimate analysis, this Court is unable to hold that the allegations made against the present Petitioners are so absurd, inherently improbable or wholly unsupported by material that continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of Court. The prosecution materials, taken at their face value, do disclose prima facie ingredients of the offences alleged. The case undoubtedly raises disputed factual questions requiring full-fledged evidentiary adjudication before the competent trial Court. Consequently, this Court finds no compelling ground warranting exercise of extraordinary inherent jurisdiction for quashing the impugned proceedings. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2026 17:57:39 Signature Not Verified Page 28 V. CONCLUSION: 22. In view of the foregoing analysis and upon careful consideration of the material facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 17.07.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process against the Petitioners suffers from no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 23. Accordingly, the CRLMCs, being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. It is however clarified that all observations made herein are confined solely to adjudication of the present petitions and shall not prejudice either party during trial, which shall proceed independently on the basis of evidence adduced before the learned Court below. 24. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 15th May, 2026/-