Orissa High Court
Lochani Nayak & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Ors. …. Opp. Party (S) on 13 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.138 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 read
with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).
Lochani Nayak & Ors. .... Petitioner (s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opp. Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Satyabrata Dash, Adv.
R.K. Sarangi, Adv.
V.K. Sharma, Adv.
For Opp. Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
Mr. Gajendranath Raut, Adv.
Mr. Suryakanta Palat, Adv.
(for O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-27.02.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.03.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The present CRLMC has been filed by three petitioners, namely the
mother-in-law aged about 78 years, the sister-in-law, and the brother-in-
law of Opposite Party No. 2, seeking quashing of the entire proceeding in
D.V. Case No. 14 of 2025 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. (P), Kujang,
instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005.
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
(i) Opposite Party No. 2 is the legally married wife of Hemanta Nayak.
Her case is that after marriage she lived in the matrimonial
household along with her husband and his family members,
including the present petitioners, and during the subsistence of that
domestic relationship she was subjected to physical and mental
cruelty, neglect, deprivation of food, threats to her life, and other
acts alleged to constitute domestic violence.
(ii) Prior to the institution of the D.V. proceeding, Opposite Party No. 2
had lodged Kujang P.S. Case No. 332 of 2023 corresponding to G.R.
Case No. 868 of 2023 against her husband and the present
petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A/406/506/34 IPC.
Charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken, charges were
framed, and the case proceeded to full trial.
(iii) By judgment dated 05.04.2025, the learned J.M.F.C. (P), Kujang
acquitted the accused persons in the said G.R. case, holding that the
prosecution had failed to prove the charges under Sections 498-
A/406/506/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court noted
omissions in the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, contradictions
among prosecution witnesses, absence of seizure of alleged dowry
articles, lack of medical evidence, and vagueness in relation to the
allegation of criminal intimidation.
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09
(iv) Thereafter, on 13.08.2025, Opposite Party No. 2 instituted D.V. Case
No. 14 of 2025 seeking reliefs under Sections 17, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of
the PWDV Act. The present petitioners have challenged the
continuance of that proceeding on the ground that it amounts to
abuse of process, whereas the State and Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3
contend that the D.V. proceeding is a distinct statutory remedy and
is maintainable notwithstanding the earlier acquittal in the criminal
case.
II. PETITIONERS’ SUBMISSIONS:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions.
(i) The petitioners contend that the D.V. proceeding is a clear abuse of
the process of law insofar as the present in-laws have been roped in
again on the basis of the very same factual allegations which had
earlier been made the subject matter of Kujang P.S. Case No. 332 of
2023 and which culminated in their acquittal after a full-fledged
criminal trial.
(ii) It is their case that Opposite Party No. 2 has been residing in her
parental house since lodging of the FIR and that no fresh cause of
action has been disclosed against the present petitioners after the
earlier criminal proceeding. According to them, the allegations in
the domestic violence application are identical, in other words,
substantially the same, as those contained in the FIR and the
deposition in the prior criminal case.
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09
(iii) The petitioners submit that the judgment of acquittal dated
05.04.2025 has attained finality and contains findings that the
allegations of dowry demand, physical torture, criminal
intimidation, and misappropriation were not proved. They
therefore argue that permitting another proceeding on the same
allegations would amount to harassment through repeated
litigation and would defeat the finality attached to the earlier
adjudication.
(iv) The petitioners further contend that there are no specific allegations
against them individually and the allegations are omnibus, vague,
and generalized. Stress is laid on the fact that petitioner No. 1 is an
elderly widowed mother-in-law aged 78 years, petitioner No. 2 is
the sister-in-law, and petitioner No. 3 is the husband of the sister-in-
law, and that they have been implicated only out of personal
grudge.
(v) The petitioners also urge that the principal relief, if any, is really
directed against the husband, Hemanta Nayak, and not against the
present petitioners. On that basis, they argue that continuation of
the proceeding against the in-laws is unwarranted, especially when
no distinct or independent role is attributed to them in a legally
sustainable manner.
(vi) A further contention raised is that the D.V. complaint is barred by
limitation, having been filed nearly one year and eleven months
after the alleged last cause of action, namely the FIR-related
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09
incident. In support of this plea, reliance is placed on the decision in
Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab1 and the argument is built
that cognizance ought not to have been taken in a belated
proceeding.
(vii) The petitioners also rely on precedents to submit that where
domestic violence proceedings are manifestly attended with gross
illegality, abuse of process, or are instituted against in-laws on
vague and retaliatory allegations, the High Court may quash the
same in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.
III. OPPOSTITE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS:
4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The State and Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 contend that the D.V.
proceeding is maintainable because the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a distinct and special enactment
meant to provide civil and remedial protection to women facing
violence within the domestic sphere, and its scope is not exhausted
or barred merely because a prosecution under the IPC has ended in
acquittal.
(ii) Their case is that Opposite Party No. 2 had lived in a shared
household with her husband and the present petitioners and was
therefore in a domestic relationship with them within the meaning
1
2011 AIR SCW 6259Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09of Section 2(f) of the Act. On that premise, it is submitted that the
petitioners fall within the statutory framework of persons against
whom relief can be claimed under the Act.
(iii) It is contended that the allegations disclosed in the domestic
violence petition, read with the domestic incident report and the
overall facts pleaded, prima facie make out domestic violence in
terms of Section 3 of the Act, including physical abuse, emotional
abuse, economic abuse, threats, and harassment connected with
matrimonial discord and dowry-related conduct.
(iv) The opposite parties further submit that the acquittal in the earlier
G.R. case does not conclude the issue for purposes of the PWDV Act
because the nature, object, and standard of inquiry in the two
proceedings are not identical. According to them, the criminal
court’s failure to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt cannot
automatically wipe out the aggrieved woman’s claim for residence,
protection, maintenance, compensation, or other civil reliefs under
the special statute.
(v) It is further argued that the victim’s testimony and surrounding
circumstances reveal a continuous course of domestic abuse
beginning during marriage, intensifying after she came to know of
her husband’s illicit relationship, and continuing even after
attempts at settlement and resumed cohabitation. Thus, the matter
ought to go to trial before the Magistrate rather than being
terminated at the threshold.
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09
(vi) The State also argues that the trial court’s earlier acquittal was itself
based on an erroneous appreciation of evidence, inasmuch as the
victim had consistently spoken about assault, wrongful
confinement, threats, and rescue by police after dialing emergency
services, and that the testimony of the victim, if credible, cannot be
discarded merely for want of corroboration in every case.
(vii) The opposite parties therefore maintain that the present CRLMC
lacks merit, that the D.V. case discloses sufficient prima facie
material requiring adjudication, and that quashing the proceeding
at this stage would seriously prejudice the aggrieved woman and
defeat the protective purpose of the statute.
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT:
5. The Analysis of the Order of the Trial Court is as follows:
(i) The judgment of the learned trial court in G.R. Case No. 868 of 2023
proceeds on a close scrutiny of whether the prosecution had
established the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC
beyond reasonable doubt. The court did not return a positive
finding that no incident whatsoever occurred; rather, it held that the
prosecution evidence suffered from such omissions, contradictions,
and evidentiary gaps that the criminal charges could not be said to
have been proved to the required standard.
(ii) In relation to Section 498-A IPC, the trial court laid substantial
emphasis on omissions in the informant’s Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09
statement concerning dowry demand, wrongful confinement, and
administration of chilly smoke, and treated the subsequent
assertions in court as improvements or afterthoughts. It also noticed
inter se inconsistencies among prosecution witnesses on whether
dowry articles had in fact been given and the absence of seizure of
such alleged articles during investigation.
(iii) On the allegations of physical and mental cruelty, the lower court
considered the absence of medical examination and supporting
medical documents as a significant circumstance. It also found that
the related witnesses had made only broad or bald allegations of
torture without furnishing sufficiently concrete substantiation,
thereby rendering the prosecution version doubtful in the criminal
law sense.
(iv) With respect to Section 406 IPC, the trial court found a complete
failure to establish the foundational ingredient of entrustment and
subsequent dishonest misappropriation. The reasoning of the court
was that, in the absence of clear evidence that specific property had
been entrusted to the accused and thereafter converted or
misappropriated by them, conviction under that provision could
not be sustained.
(v) As regards Section 506 IPC, the trial court held that the allegation of
threat remained general and vague, without specific attribution as
to which accused had uttered the threat, and without sufficient
material to show the requisite legal ingredients of criminal
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09
intimidation. This led the court to conclude that the charge under
Section 506/34 IPC was also not proved.
(vi) The overall analytical structure of the lower court judgment is
therefore evidentiary and offence-specific: it separates the
ingredients of each penal provision, compares them with the
prosecution material on record, and acquits on the basis of
insufficiency of proof. Its focus is on proof beyond reasonable doubt
in a criminal trial, particularly in light of omissions in prior
statements, inconsistencies in testimony, and lack of corroborative
material such as seizure or medical evidence.
(vii) At the same time, the lower court judgment is confined to
adjudication of criminal liability under the IPC and does not
examine the availability of civil or protective remedies under the
PWDV Act. The acquittal therefore represents a finding on failure of
criminal proof in that prosecution; whether the same facts can still
furnish the basis for adjudication under a different statutory
framework is a separate legal question arising in the present
CRLMC.
V. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX:
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed
on record.
7. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita seeks quashing of the entire proceeding in D.V. Case No. 14 of
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09
2025 pending before the learned J M F C, Kujang, instituted under Section
12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
8. The jurisdiction under Section 528 is an exceptional jurisdiction. It is not a
forum for a reappreciation of evidence or for recording disputed findings
of fact. Interference is warranted only where the proceeding is palpably
without jurisdiction, does not disclose the foundational legal ingredients
even if the pleadings are accepted at the face value, or is otherwise a clear
case of gross abuse of process.
9. The proceeding under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act is
predominantly civil and remedial in character, though it is entertained by
a criminal court. The Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that
while exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash a proceeding arising out of
an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the High Court should be
very slow and circumspect, and interference can be made only when the
case clearly discloses gross illegality or gross abuse of process.
10.The petitioners contend that the D.V. case is founded on the very same
allegations which were earlier tried in the prosecution arising out of the
police case under Sections 498 A, 406 and 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and which ended in acquittal by judgment dated 05
April 2025, and therefore the continuation of the D.V. case is oppressive
and amounts to an abuse of process.
11.They further contend that there is no fresh cause of action after the earlier
criminal case, that the allegations against the petitioners are omnibus, and
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09
that the application is barred by limitation, reliance being placed
on Inderjit Singh Grewal (Supra).
12.The State and Opposite Party contend that the D.V. Act provides distinct
civil and protective reliefs, that an acquittal in an Indian Penal Code
prosecution does not bar statutory remedies under the D.V. Act, and that
the application is maintainable and discloses prima facie domestic
violence.
13. The Supreme Court in Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka
Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari2 has explained that the scheme of
the D V Act provides civil remedies in the first instance, and the element
of criminality arises upon breach of protection orders. The proceeding
under Section 12 is, in essence, an amalgamation of civil rights and
protective reliefs. The Court held as follows:
“11. We have already mentioned the prayers which were
made by Respondent 1 in the original petition and Prayer A
thereof relates to Section 9. However, in Prayer B,
Respondent 1 also sought relief of grant of monthly
maintenance to her as well as her children. This prayer falls
within the ambit of Section 20 of the DV Act. In fact,
Prayer A is covered by Section 18 which empowers the
Magistrate to grant such a protection which is claimed by
Respondent 1. Therefore, the petition is essentially under
Sections 18 and 20 of the DV Act, though in the heading
these provisions are not mentioned. However, that may not
make any difference and, therefore, no issue was raised by
the appellant on this count. In respect of the petition filed2
(2016) 11 SCC 774Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09under Sections 18 and 20 of the DV Act, the proceedings
are to be governed by the Code, as provided under Section
28 of the DV Act. At the same time, it cannot be disputed
that these proceedings are predominantly of civil nature.
12. In fact, the very purpose of enacting the DV Act was to
provide for a remedy which is an amalgamation of civil
rights of the complainant i.e. aggrieved person. Intention
was to protect women against violence of any kind,
especially that occurring within the family as the civil law
does not address this phenomenon in its entirety. It is
treated as an offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code,
1860. The purpose of enacting the law was to provide a
remedy in the civil law for the protection of women from
being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the
occurrence of domestic violence in the society.”
14.Similarly, Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal3, has reaffirmed that
notwithstanding the penal provisions in the Act, proceedings before the
Magistrate under the D.V. Act are predominantly of a civil nature. It has
further held that the High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction to
quash proceedings arising out of an application under Section 12 to
prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, but the High
Court must ordinarily adopt a hands off approach and interfere only in
cases of clear gross illegality or gross abuse of process.
15.The earlier judgment of acquittal dated 05 April 2025 in the prosecution
under Sections 498 A, 406 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code was rendered on the yardstick of proof beyond reasonable
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158.
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09
doubt. The reasons noted by the trial court, as placed before this Court,
indicate that the acquittal followed from omissions, contradictions and
lack of corroborative material, and not from any definitive finding that no
domestic discord or maltreatment ever occurred.
16.The reliefs claimed in the pending D.V. proceeding are in the nature of
protection, residence, monetary relief, compensation and interim orders.
These reliefs are civil and remedial. The D.V. Act is a welfare legislation
and the proceeding under Section 12 is predominantly civil. Therefore,
the mere fact of acquittal in the earlier criminal case does not, by itself,
extinguish or bar the statutory civil remedies under the D.V. Act.
17.The petitioners have urged that there is no fresh cause of action. This
contention, at the present stage, does not lead to an inevitable conclusion
of abuse of process. The D.V. Act provides protection against domestic
violence as defined, including economic abuse and deprivation, and the
entitlement to civil reliefs under the statute has to be adjudicated in
accordance with the pleadings and evidence. Whether the allegations are
ultimately proved, and to what extent any relief lies against each
respondent, are matters squarely within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
to decide on merits.
18.On the question of limitation, the Supreme Court in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi
Narayanan4, has held that the High Court erred in equating an
application under Section 12 with lodging of a criminal complaint or
4
2022 15 SCC 50
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09
initiation of prosecution, and consequently it was erroneous to apply a
rigid one-year limitation to such an application.
19.Hence, the plea of limitation as urged in the present case cannot be
accepted in the manner urged. The decision in Kamatchi (supra) as
clarified the legal position that an application under Section 12 cannot be
treated as initiation of prosecution so as to import a rigid one year bar.
The petitioners’ limitation objection, therefore, does not furnish a ground
for quashing the proceeding at the threshold.
20.The petitioners have also urged that the allegations against them are
vague and omnibus. This Court has perused the application under
Section 12 and the accompanying material placed. The application asserts
that Opposite Party lived in the shared household along with the
husband and his family members including the present petitioners, and
that during the subsistence of that domestic relationship she was
subjected to cruelty and deprivation. At the stage of a quashing petition,
this Court is not to assess the probative worth of those allegations or to
weigh possible defences. Unless the pleadings are wholly bereft of the
essential elements of domestic relationship and domestic violence, the
Court would ordinarily refrain from stifling a D.V. proceeding at
inception.
21.On an overall consideration, this Court does not find the present case to
be one of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law warranting
exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the D.V. proceeding. The
petitioners have efficacious remedies before the Magistrate including
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-Apr-2026 18:20:09
raising all permissible objections, seeking appropriate orders regarding
personal appearance, and contesting interim reliefs on merits in
accordance with law.
22.Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed.
23.The interim order staying the proceedings, if any, is vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 13th March, 2026/
Page 15