Orissa High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Doctor Accused Of Helping Husband Cheat Women Through Sham Marriages
The Orissa High Court has recently denied to quash criminal case against a doctor-wife accused of being an accomplice to her husband in inducing multiple women to illegally enter into marriage with the latter in order to exploit them financially.Noting that a charge-sheet has already been submitted in the case, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi was not inclined to grant any...
The Orissa High Court has recently denied to quash criminal case against a doctor-wife accused of being an accomplice to her husband in inducing multiple women to illegally enter into marriage with the latter in order to exploit them financially.
Noting that a charge-sheet has already been submitted in the case, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi was not inclined to grant any relief at this stage. Upon perusing the prima facie materials available in the case, the Court remarked–
“Marriage, in its idealized conception, is spoken of as a sacrament which is a union sanctified by trust, in which two strangers agree to become each other's keepers. But when that same institution is reduced to an instrument of commerce, when a wedding invitation becomes a charge-sheet, and a matrimonial home becomes the scene of an alleged economic offence, the Court is called upon to separate the grain of genuine matrimonial discord from the chaff of a well-oiled confidence trick. The present CRLMC compels this Court to walk precisely that line.”
As per the prosecution allegation, the complainant came in contact, through a matrimonial portal, with one Ramesh Chandra Swain (prime accused), who allegedly projected himself as “Dr. Bibhu Prakash Swain”, Deputy Director General of Health, posted at Bangalore. He purportedly fabricated identity documents and vehicle papers to support his fake identity.
Prior to the marriage, when the complainant visited the house of the prime accused, she was introduced to the petitioner, who was represented to be the “Bhabhi”/sister-in-law of the principal accused and a doctor practicing in San Francisco. The marriage was solemnised on 03.12.2018. It is further alleged that by creating a false status of professional eminence, the accused persons induced the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.11,08,000/-.
An FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/494/120-B/34 of the IPC and a charge-sheet was laid before the SDJM, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impending criminal prosecution, approached the High Court seeking to quash the case.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no role to play in the alleged crime and the same is being orchestrated by the prime accused alone. However, the complainant appeared in person to argue that the cheated amount, or at least a substantial part thereof, was deposited into bank accounts standing in the names of the petitioner's minor children.
She further alleged that the petitioner was introduced as “Bhabhi” not only to the complainant, but was similarly identified before other women who are also induced to pay heavy monetary amounts through similar matrimonial deceptions. It was submitted that if the allegations are proved at trial, the case would fall squarely within the ambit of Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the IPC.
Upon hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials, the Court noted that the charge-sheet discloses a monetary trail and the transfer of a substantial sum into accounts held in the name of the petitioner's minor children. Further taking into account the allegation that the petitioner has been falsely introduced as 'Bhabhi' of the prime accused to multiple duped women, the Court was of the view that the allegation looks less like a family courtesy and more like a “rehearsed act”.
Even though the petitioner sought quashing of the case on the further ground that the impending criminal prosecution might cast a shadow on her professional career, the Court did not deem it proper to brush aside the prosecution case at this stage, which can be best adjudged by a trial Court through testimonies and cross-examinations.
“It is also not lost on this Court that an arrest, and the pendency of a criminal trial, exact a real and personal cost particularly upon a person in public service. That cost, however, cannot by itself be the measure of whether an FIR discloses a triable offence; if it were, every accused with a career to protect would qualify for quashing, and Section 482 would cease to be an extraordinary jurisdiction and become an ordinary escape hatch,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, liberty being granted to the petitioner to raise all grounds in her defence before the trial Court at the appropriate stage.
Case Title: Dr. Kamala Tirkey @ Swain @ Kamala Tirky v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Case No: CRLMC No. 519 of 2026
Date of Order: June 30, 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Prabhu Prasana Behera, Additional Standing Counsel
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 71