Strong Suspicion is Enough to Frame Charge, Even in Matrimonial Disputes: Orissa High Court Dismisses Anubhav Mohanty’s Plea for Discharge in Cruelty Case

“At the stage of framing of charge, appreciation of evidence or the accused’s defence is impermissible” – Orissa High Court dismissed the plea of actor and former MP Anubhav Mohanty and two others seeking discharge from charges under Sections 498-A, 506, 341, 294, 509, 109, and 34 IPC.

Justice B.P. Routray held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is only to see if the allegations are groundless. If a strong suspicion exists that the accused may have committed the offence, that alone is sufficient to proceed to trial. The court emphatically observed: “Appreciation of evidence, truthfulness of allegations, or probable defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.”

Matrimonial Discord No Ground to Throttle Criminal Trial: Court Upholds Trial Judge’s Refusal to Discharge

The High Court was hearing a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC challenging the order of the JMFC, Cuttack dated May 8, 2024, in G.R. Case No. 1544/2020, which had rejected the petitioners’ application for discharge. The FIR was lodged by Ms. Varsha Priyadarshini, also a renowned figure in the Odia film industry and the estranged wife of Petitioner No.1.

Justice Routray firmly rejected the argument that the ongoing civil and matrimonial litigations between the parties diluted the seriousness of the criminal allegations. He observed, “Mere existence of matrimonial discord or civil litigation cannot be a ground to short-circuit criminal prosecution, especially where the FIR and witness statements disclose prima facie ingredients of the alleged offences.”

Court Notes Prima Facie Case of Harassment and Humiliation: Locking Estranged Wife Out at Night Amounts to Cruelty

The case arose from an incident on December 18, 2020, when the complainant, who had court-ordered residential rights in the matrimonial home at Nandisahi, Cuttack, returned late at night accompanied by police protection, only to find herself locked out of the first floor of the house. Despite an interim direction from the Magistrate in a Domestic Violence proceeding, which allowed her access to the first floor, the gate had allegedly been locked with a new lock and chain.

The Court recorded the incident as recounted in the FIR and corroborated by police witnesses:

“She found the main gate of the 1st floor locked with support of a chain and a new lock... Petitioner No.3 denied possession of the key... After nearly an hour, he admitted he had the key and finally opened the lock.”

The complainant had to stand outside the house late into the winter night, in full public view, an act which the court noted could amount to “mental torture and harassment, potentially offending her modesty”. Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC by the on-duty women constables corroborated her version, with the Court holding that the allegations prima facie made out the ingredients of cruelty, wrongful restraint, and insult to modesty.

Rebuttal Evidence of Accused Not Relevant at Discharge Stage: High Court Rejects Petitioner’s Written Explanation

Anubhav Mohanty had attempted to explain that the lock was placed for security, and that he had left a key for the complainant. However, the Court found this to be rebuttal evidence, inadmissible at the stage of discharge. Justice Routray clarified:

“Such submissions of the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage as a matter of rebuttal evidence. At the stage of framing of charge, the court is to rely only on the prosecution material. Defence pleas have to be tested at trial.”

The Court echoed the settled principle from State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [(2005) 1 SCC 568] that accused persons have no right to produce additional material at the stage of framing of charge, and that the test is not whether conviction is certain but whether there is strong suspicion.

Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 397 CrPC: High Court Cautions Against Interference Except for Patent Illegality

The petitioners’ reliance on revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC was also dismissed as misconceived. The Court noted that such powers are narrower than the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, and reiterated that the revisional court cannot undertake a meticulous re-appreciation of facts or evidence.

Citing the landmark judgment in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460], the Court observed:

“Revisional jurisdiction is to correct jurisdictional errors or perversity, not to weigh evidence. Unless the case reveals a patent miscarriage of justice or abuse of process, the High Court should not interfere with trial court’s decision at this stage.”

“Prima Facie Allegations Attract Offences Alleged”: Court Declines to Quash Criminal Proceedings

Ultimately, the Court found that the FIR, Section 161 CrPC statements, and material in the charge-sheet disclosed a prima facie case under the IPC provisions, particularly Section 498-A, which penalizes cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relatives. The Court also refused to interfere despite the high-profile nature of the parties:

“Taking note of the status of both parties, as their reputation is in the society, it cannot be opined at the stage of framing of charge that no offence is attracted.”

The Court upheld the trial court’s discretion in rejecting the discharge application and dismissed the revision petition.

In reaffirming the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the settled principles governing discharge at the stage of framing of charge, the Orissa High Court has once again underscored that criminal prosecutions rooted in prima facie allegations cannot be aborted merely because the parties are engaged in matrimonial disputes or public personalities. The truth of the allegations, the veracity of defence, and the weight of evidence are all to be tested during trial and not at the threshold.

Date of Decision: 30 November 2025