In a recent judgment dated August 6, 2025, the Orissa High Court at Cuttack, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Chittaranjan Dash, partly allowed a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, quashing criminal proceedings only against the sister-in-law in a dowry harassment case while allowing the trial to proceed against the husband and his parents.
The petition was filed in CRLMC No. 2444 of 2016 by Debi Prasad Bindhani and others, challenging the cognizance order dated August 19, 2015, passed by the learned SDJM, Balasore, in C.T. Case No. 2268 of 2014 arising out of Balasore Town P.S. Case No. 237 of 2014. The FIR was filed by the wife (Opposite Party No. 2), alleging serious charges of dowry-related harassment and physical assault by her husband and his family.
Read Also:-Orissa High Court Rejects Bail Plea in Rape Case: Victim Yet to be Examined
According to the case details, the complainant married Petitioner No.1 on November 23, 2008. The couple, initially living separately due to work, later stayed together, but disputes soon arose. The wife alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical torture, including denial of food during pregnancy and an attempt to set her on fire for not fulfilling a dowry demand of ₹5 lakhs. After giving birth to a male child, she returned to her parental home, claiming continued threats and harassment.
The husband filed for divorce in 2013 on grounds of cruelty and desertion. Subsequently, cross FIRs were lodged in April 2014 following a physical altercation. Later, in September 2014, the wife lodged a separate complaint which led to registration of the dowry harassment case. A charge sheet was filed, and cognizance was taken by the SDJM, Balasore.
Read Also:-Orissa High Court Slams Husband for Misusing Habeas Corpus, Imposes ₹25K Cost for Frivolous Plea
The allegations of mental and physical cruelty, non-provision of food after childbirth, and demand of ₹5 lakhs by the in-laws are not unfounded at this stage, the Court observed after examining statements recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, from neighbours and the family priest. These statements supported claims of abuse and cruelty.
The petitioners contended that the allegations were baseless and intended to harass them after the husband had initiated divorce proceedings. Counsel for the petitioners also highlighted that omnibus and vague allegations were made against Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, including the retired police officer father-in-law, the retired teacher mother-in-law, and the sister-in-law who worked as an assistant teacher.
However, the Court noted:
“There is ample material gathered during the investigation, in addition to the FIR, which prima facie provides sufficient grounds to proceed to trial against the Petitioners.”
Relying on precedents such as Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand, State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pirthi Chand, the Court reiterated that at the stage of cognizance, the allegations must be taken at face value and cannot be dismissed merely based on the defence’s arguments.
While the Court found specific allegations justifying trial against the husband (Petitioner No.1) and his parents (Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3), it held that no specific accusations were made against the sister-in-law (Petitioner No.4). The Court concluded:
Read Also:-Orissa High Court Declares SBI's Termination of Messenger Arbitrary, Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation
No specific and distinct allegations constituting the alleged offences are made out against Petitioner No.4… continuation of the criminal proceeding against her would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the cognizance order was quashed only in respect of the sister-in-law, while the CRLMC was partly allowed.
Case Title: Debi Prasad Bindhani and Others vs. State of Orissa & Another
Case Number: CRLMC No. 2444 of 2016