Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4390 of 2025 (In the matter of a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Waralaxhmi @ Ratnala Varalakshmi @ R. Varalaxmi & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Dash, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, ASC Mr. S. Ghosh, Adv. On behalf of Mrs. Sailabala Jena, Adv. (for O.P No.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING: -06.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -22.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioners in the present petition seek quashing of the entire proceeding in G.R. Case No.280 of 2024 arising out of Rayagada P.S. Case No.123 of 2024, instituted under Sections 498- A/294/323/506/406/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rayagada taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the present petitioners. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 2 I. FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Jyotshna Choudhury, Opposite Party No.2, was married to one Ratnala Srinivas Rao on 09.09.2023 at Sai Surya Function Hall, Madhurwada, Visakhapatnam, according to Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged in the FIR that at the time of marriage, her family members gave dowry in the form of 18 tolas of gold, 3 kgs of silver, household articles such as a Godrej almirah, washing machine, utensils, and a sum of Rs.10 lakhs in cash. 3. After about fifteen days of marriage, her husband and his family members allegedly started demanding further dowry in the shape of a Bullet motorcycle and cash of Rs.3,00,000/-, besides a bed, a television, and a flat, and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. On 05.11.2023, it is alleged, her uncle and aunt visited her matrimonial home when the accused persons abused and threatened her for not fulfilling the dowry demands. 4. On 03.12.2023, her mother-in-law is said to have assaulted her by holding her neck, and her husband allegedly attempted to assault her with a hot iron tawa, which came in contact with her hand and caused burn injuries, whereafter she was driven out of the house with threats to her life. It is further alleged that on 31.01.2024, when her parents, uncle, and aunt went to her matrimonial house to intervene, the accused persons refused to keep her, abused them in filthy language, and the husband allegedly pulled her hair in front of everyone and threatened to kill her. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 3 5. On these allegations, Rayagada P.S. Case No.123 of 2024 was registered on 05.04.2024 under Sections 498-A/294/323/506/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared the spot map, seized relevant documents including marriage photographs and account statements, and examined the complainant as well as her relatives and other cited witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statements of Balakrushna Chaudhury, Sabita Chaudhury, Bikash Chaudhury and others were recorded, and medical papers relating to the alleged burn injuries of the complainant were also collected. After completion of investigation, finding prima facie materials against the accused persons, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet vide C.S. No.277 dated 18.07.2024 against the petitioners under Sections 498-A/323/294/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act before the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada. 7. Thereafter, upon receipt of the charge-sheet dated 18.07.2024, the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada, by order dated 19.07.2024 in G.R. Case No.280 of 2024, was pleased to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A/294/323/506/406/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the accused persons including the present petitioners. II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS: 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 4 i. It is respectfully submitted that the said order of cognizance has been passed in a mechanical manner, without due application of judicial mind to the materials collected during investigation and without considering the absence of specific and distinct allegations against the petitioners. ii. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the informant, only to disturb the peaceful life of the petitioners, lodged the F.I.R. implicating them, although the petitioners are in no way connected to the allegations made by the informant. iii. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the informant has not stated the clear story behind the scene, which is that the informant, Jyotshna Chowdary, was working in “Brelly Software Solution” Private Limited and her husband, who is the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, namely Mr. Ratnala Srinivasa Rao, was working as a Software Engineer in SPI Technologies at Chennai. The marriage proposal was fixed and the marriage negotiation talks commenced, and the engagement (exchange of ring ceremony) was held at Vamsikrishna Hall on 28th July, 2023 at Rayagada. Thereafter, the marriage date was fixed to 9th September, 2023 and, on the scheduled date, the marriage was solemnized between the informant and her husband at Visakhapatnam in the presence of friends, relatives, and well-wishers of both the parties. iv. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the allegation to the effect that, at the time of marriage, the informant’s Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 5 family had given 18 tolas of gold to the bridegroom and five tolas of gold to the bride by the parents of Jyotshna Chowdary is false. However, it is true that cash of Rupees Ten lakhs was given by various modes of payment to the petitioners and it is also true that some silver ornaments were given. It is also true that one Godrej washing machine was presented to the couple. But the other articles alleged to have been given are false. v. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, after the marriage, both the parties lived happily for a few weeks at the house of the petitioners at Gandhinagar, Visakhapatnam. On 27th September, 2023, both the husband and wife went to Araku Valley for sightseeing and, on the night of 29th September, 2023, the informant suffered serious chest pain. The next morning, they returned to Visakhapatnam and the husband took the informant to Padmaja Hospital at Visakhapatnam and got her treated there. After one week from the date of medical examination, she was taken to ‘Hari Divya’ Heart Care Centre on 08.10.2023 for treatment as referred by Padmaja Hospital. After knowing the above facts, her parents came to the house of the petitioners at Visakhapatnam on 31st January, 2024 and took back the informant to Rayagada along with her gold ornaments and other materials belonging to her and did not send her back to her matrimonial house. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioners drove her out from their house is absolutely false and fabricated. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 6 vi. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, on several occasions, the petitioners requested the informant and also her parents to send her back to the matrimonial house at Visakhapatnam to lead a conjugal life with her husband and requested her parents to cooperate in restoring matrimonial harmony. However, they did not choose to leave her at the residence of the petitioners and, by making some false and fabricated story, lodged the FIR. Therefore, the petitioners are innocent of the alleged acts. vii. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the informant is an educated lady but always put pressure on her husband for a separate mess from his parents and, without any cause, picked up quarrels with the entire family members even on petty matters, which she turned into major issues, and called her parents to interfere with the family disputes. viii. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to support the prosecution story so far as the alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code are concerned. There is no material collected by the prosecution, nor is there any allegation whatsoever constituting the said offences against any of the petitioners. ix. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the F.I.R. and charge sheet merely level general and sweeping allegations against the in-laws, without attributing any distinct overt act to them. The complainant has simply alleged that “all accused persons” demanded Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 7 dowry and ill-treated her, which does not satisfy the legal requirement of making out a prima facie case against the present petitioners. x. The learned counsel for the petitioners respectfully submitted that, since the disputes arose due to matrimonial discord and the facts reveal that the informant, only to harass the petitioners who are the in-laws, lodged the F.I.R., the further proceeding in the case would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It was submitted that, if the proceeding is allowed to continue, it may lead to a situation where there is every possibility of further misunderstanding between the parties and, therefore, it would be a fit case to invoke the power under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of the order and the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioners. xi. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has observed that relatives of the husband are often roped in with vague allegations in matrimonial disputes, and the Courts should be careful in dealing with such complaints so as to prevent misuse of criminal law. xii. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate took cognizance against all the accused persons in a mechanical manner, without examining whether the ingredients of the offences are made out against each petitioner. xiii. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR, the witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 8 and the charge sheet reveals that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioners. At best, the allegations are directed against the husband, while the in-laws have been named only to pressurize the family. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. xiv. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, did not consider whether the allegations and materials in the charge sheet disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners. Cognizance has been taken in a mechanical manner against all the accused persons, contrary to the judicial duty of applying mind before issuing process. xv. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, if the impugned order is allowed to stand, the same will not only cause irreparable injury to the petitioners, but will also amount to abuse of the process of the Court inasmuch as, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as reflected in the F.I.R. and the other evidence available on record, no conviction can ever be made against the petitioners. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. xvi. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the law is well settled that the power of the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 9 to secure the ends of justice. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. xvii. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are no specific, clear, or unambiguous allegations of cruelty or dowry demand against any of the present petitioners and the accusations made in the FIR as well as the charge sheet are omnibus in nature, without attributing any distinct overt act to them. In such circumstances, compelling the petitioners to face the rigours of a full- fledged criminal trial would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the process of law. It is a settled principle laid down by the Supreme Court that, when the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose commission of any offence against the accused, continuation of the proceedings is unwarranted. Therefore, as against the petitioners, no fruitful purpose would be served by subjecting them to trial and the same is liable to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. xviii. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the materials on record fail to disclose any prima facie case against the petitioners warranting their prosecution. Petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are also residing at Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh and had no direct involvement in the matrimonial affairs of the informant and her husband, but they have also been implicated by Opp. Party No.2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, being the parents-in-law, have not tortured the informant in any manner. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 10 There is also no allegation against petitioner No.3. Hence, the prosecution is liable to be quashed against all the petitioners. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The learned counsel for Opp. Party No.2 submitted that the present application seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, and order of cognizance is misconceived, premature, and an abuse of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It was submitted that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed material facts, selectively narrated the events, and attempted to project a defence version which is impermissible at the stage of quashing. ii. It was further submitted that the husband of Opp. Party No.2 and the petitioners had represented before marriage that the husband was highly qualified, earning a substantial income, and owned certain properties, including a 3 BHK flat where the couple would reside after marriage. It was also submitted that the husband induced Opp. Party No.2 to resign from her employment on the assurance that he would take care of the family finances. iii. The learned counsel further submitted that, as per the demand of the petitioners and their family members, dowry articles including 18 tolas of gold, 3 kgs of silver, a cheque of Rs.10 lakhs, household articles, and other valuables were given at the time of marriage. However, after a brief period of peaceful matrimonial life, the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 11 husband and the petitioners allegedly started demanding further dowry in the form of a Bullet motorcycle, cash of Rs.3 lakhs, and money for purchase of a bed, TV, and flat, and subjected Opp. Party No.2 to mental and physical cruelty when such demands were resisted. iv. It was further submitted that petitioner No.3 insulted and abused Opp. Party No.2, claimed ownership over the 3 BHK flat, demanded rent from her, and was the first person in the matrimonial house to physically assault her. The petitioners and the husband allegedly threatened to kill Opp. Party No.2 and made remarks regarding her character. It was also alleged that the husband isolated Opp. Party No.2 in the matrimonial home, prevented her from sharing the bedroom, and forced her to sleep separately. v. The learned counsel submitted that petitioner Nos.4 and 5 were also actively involved in assaulting, insulting, and humiliating Opp. Party No.2 whenever they visited the matrimonial house. It was further alleged that the petitioners and the husband publicly humiliated Opp. Party No.2, body-shamed her, questioned her character, and compelled her to contribute towards family expenses despite forcing her to leave her job. vi. It was further submitted that, despite repeated acts of cruelty and humiliation, Opp. Party No.2 initially refrained from disclosing the incidents to her family members in the hope that the matrimonial disputes would be amicably resolved and also due to the ill health of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 12 her father. However, the behaviour of the petitioners allegedly did not change and she was denied food and medicine during illness and was eventually forced to leave the matrimonial house. vii. It was further submitted that, when the family members of Opp. Party No.2 attempted reconciliation, the petitioners reiterated their dowry demands and abused her relatives. It was alleged that petitioner No.1 assaulted Opp. Party No.2 by gripping her neck and the husband attempted to assault her with a hot iron tawa, causing burn injuries to her hand. It was also alleged that Opp. Party No.2 was ultimately left at her parental home with threats not to return unless the dowry demands were fulfilled. viii. It was further submitted that, when Opp. Party No.2 and her relatives again visited the matrimonial home on 31.01.2024 for reconciliation, the petitioners refused to allow her to stay there and the husband assaulted her by pulling her hair in public and abusing her and her family members. Left with no alternative, Opp. Party No.2 was constrained to lodge the FIR. ix. The learned counsel submitted that the FIR, charge-sheet, and order of cognizance clearly disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners under Sections 498-A/323/294/506/406/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was contended that the allegations are neither omnibus nor vague and that the charge-sheet itself demonstrates that prima facie materials were found against the petitioners during investigation. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 13 x. It was further submitted that the learned Magistrate applied his judicial mind while taking cognizance and that, at the stage of cognizance, the Court is only required to ascertain whether prima facie ingredients of the offences are disclosed and not to conduct a mini trial. The learned counsel contended that the inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS is exceptional in nature and cannot be exercised for adjudicating defence pleas or examining the probabilities of conviction. xi. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners cannot seek quashing merely on the ground that some of them reside outside the matrimonial home, as there are specific allegations regarding their active participation in the acts of cruelty and dowry harassment. It was also submitted that the husband of Opp. Party No.2 has filed a proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights only to secure bail, whereas Opp. Party No.2 is willing to resume matrimonial life but is allegedly being prevented from entering the matrimonial home unless additional dowry is paid. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present CRLMC is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the allegations made in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation are omnibus and general in nature and do not disclose Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 14 any specific overt act against the present petitioners so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceeding against them. It has also been contended that the learned Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance without proper application of judicial mind. 12. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is apposite to note that the scope of interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is limited. The inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is necessary to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that, at the stage of cognizance or while considering a prayer for quashing, the Court is not expected to meticulously examine the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations nor undertake a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact. 13. It is further well settled that, while considering an application for quashing, the allegations made in the FIR, charge-sheet, and accompanying materials are required to be taken at their face value in order to ascertain whether the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are prima facie made out. Defence pleas raised by the accused persons and disputed factual aspects ordinarily cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 14. The settled principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 15 Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1, and subsequent decisions, wherein it has been held that the power of quashing is to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection and that the Court, at such stage, is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact. 15. In the present case, a perusal of the FIR and the materials collected during investigation reveals allegations that, soon after the marriage, Opp. Party No.2 was subjected to continuous mental and physical cruelty in connection with demand for dowry. Specific allegations have been made regarding demand of a Bullet motorcycle, cash of Rs.3 lakhs, and other household articles. There are also allegations regarding assault, abusive behaviour, humiliation, criminal intimidation, and forcible ouster of Opp. Party No.2 from the matrimonial home. 16. Upon careful examination of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the FIR are not confined to bald or omnibus assertions alone. Prima facie allegations have been made attributing participation to the petitioners in the alleged acts of cruelty and harassment. The statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also disclose allegations supporting the prosecution case regarding dowry demand and ill-treatment meted out to Opp. Party No.2. The Investigating Officer, upon completion of investigation, found sufficient prima facie materials to submit charge-sheet against the petitioners for the alleged offences. 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 16 17. The contention of the petitioners that the allegations are vague and omnibus in nature cannot be accepted at this stage inasmuch as the FIR and the materials collected during investigation contain assertions regarding the role allegedly played by the petitioners in the matrimonial dispute. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved by cogent and reliable evidence is a matter to be adjudicated during the course of trial upon appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in a proceeding under Section 528 of the BNSS. 18. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that some of them were residing separately or outside the matrimonial home is likewise a disputed question of fact which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the present proceeding. Mere residence at a different place by itself cannot constitute a ground for quashing the criminal proceeding when there are allegations regarding active participation in the alleged acts of cruelty and harassment. 19. This Court also does not find any material to hold that the learned Magistrate acted mechanically while taking cognizance. The order taking cognizance reflects consideration of the charge-sheet and the materials placed before the Court. At the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is only required to ascertain whether prima facie materials exist for proceeding against the accused persons and not whether conviction is ultimately likely to follow. 20. The submissions advanced by the petitioners primarily relate to disputed factual aspects and defence pleas regarding the matrimonial Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 17 dispute between the parties. Such matters require appreciation of evidence and cannot be examined in detail in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations and the materials collected during investigation disclose commission of cognizable offences. 21. Considering the allegations made in the FIR, the statements recorded during investigation, and the materials forming part of the charge- sheet, this Court is of the considered view that prima facie offences under Sections 498-A/294/323/506/406/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are disclosed against the petitioners. It cannot be said that the allegations are so absurd, inherently improbable, or patently mala fide so as to warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceeding at the threshold. V. CONCLUSION: 22. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court does not find any merit in the present CRLMC petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Consequently, the proceeding in G.R. Case No.280 of 2024 arising out of Rayagada P.S. Case No.123 of 2024 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada shall continue in accordance with law. 23. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 22nd May, 2026