The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.189 of 2025 Umesh and another …. Petitioner(s) Mr. S. K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Party(s)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. M. K. Mohanty, ASC Mr. A. R. Das, Advocate for O.P.2 CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 20.01.2025 Heard. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. dated Order No. 05. 1. 2. 14.11.2024 in Nilagiri P.S. Case No.364 of 2024 came to be registered against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 376(1)/313/417/506/34 of I.P.C.. 3. The allegation against the petitioners are that, on 14.11.2024, the informant being the opposite party No.2 lodged a written report before the Nilagir P.S. alleging therein that she had love relationship with the petitioner No.1. They met through Instagram handle communication. They remained in touch for a period of three years, the petitioner No.1 came to Odisha and stayed Page 1 of 6 at Hotel Binayak, Nilagiri. It is alleged by the informant that the petitioner No.1 brought her to Panchalingeswar temple and put vermillion and Mangalasutra and kept physical relationship in the hotel and claimed to be his wife. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 forced to the informant to go with him to Delhi for preparation of civil service coaching. While the informant was staying at the hotel at Delhi, the petitioner No.1 had threatened her and regularly calling her to his house and kept physical relationship with her, as a result of which, she became pregnant. When the petitioner No.1 came to know about the pregnancy, he forced to aborted the child by giving Rs.10,000/- to the doctor and thereafter sent her to Odisha. It is further alleged that when the informant was staying at Odisha, the petitioner No.1 stopped talking and gave life threatening to her. Hence, the F.I.R. 4. The petitioners and the opposite party No.2 are present in the Court and being represented and identified by their respective counsels. They have also filed self-attested copies of their Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. 5. The investigation in the present case is still going on. At this stage, the parties have settled their dispute. The petitioner No.1 Page 2 of 6 and the opposite party No.2 has already been married before the Marriage Registration Officer, Ghaziabad. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the Aadhar Card and Educational certificate submits that the date of birth of the victim girl is 17.04.2004. Therefore, she has attained the age of majority. The petitioner no.1 and the victim has already married and registered their marriage before the Marriage Registration Officer, Gaziabad, U.P. and certificate to that effect issued by the Marriage Registration Officer dated 09.12.2024 is also placed on record. 7. Opposite party no.2 is present in Court and has filed an affidavit dated 20.01.2025 stating inter alia as under:- “2. That it is humbly submittd that that victim (deponent) Namely Jyotsnarani Dash aged about 20 years D/o- Subhranshu Sekhar Dash of village Radhikadeiput, PS-Nilagiri, Dist- Balasore has lodged an FIR, against the petitoier no.1 Umesh @ Dagar aged about 22 years, D/o- Mr. Jagatsingh, At/Po- Gidoh Chhata, P.S. Kosikalan, Diost- Mathura, (Uttar Pradesh) (deponent) as well as petitioner no.2 namely Prem Singh (34), S/o. Dattak Putr Karan Singh, At- Phulwna, Kadauna, P.S/Dist- Mathura, State- Uttar Pradesh in connection with Nilagiri, P.S. Case No.364/2024 corresponding to C.T. Case No.736/2024 which is now pending in the learned S.D.J.M., Nilagiri, Dist- Court of Balasore, the commission of offences U/s. 376(1)/313/417/506/34 of IPC. 3. That it is humbly submitted that the informant (deponent) is a major girl and both the petitioner No.1 and the informant have already been married at the for Page 3 of 6 Aryasamaj and also before the marriage officer Ghaziabad (U.P.) and now both are leading a happy conjugal life. 4. That it is humbly submitted that now both the informant and the petitioner No.1 after marriage are now leading a happy conjugal life and if the criminal proceeding will be continued then their conjugal life will be hampered. It is humbly submitted that the aforesaid matter has also been settled between the petitioners and the victim (informant). It is also humbly submitted that victim (informant) do not want to proceed further on the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioners filed by the deponent. 5. That it is humbly submitted that though the petitioner No.1 as well as the informant have already married and leading a happy conjugal life and the matter has also been settled, then under such circumstances continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioners will only abuse the process of Court and will kill the valuable time of the Court. Accordingly under such circumstances, the informant (deponent) has no objection for quashing of criminal proceeding against the petitioners.” 8. On the query from the Court, the opposite party No.2, who is present in Court has stated that the dispute has already been resolved between petitioner no.1 and her and, as such, she has no grievance left against the petitioner. Hence she joins with the petitioners seeking quashing of the criminal prosecution initiated by her against the petitioners. 9. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the dispute has already been resolved by the parties and investigation in the case is still going on. The opposite Page 4 of 6 party no.2, who is major and chosen to marry the petitioner no.1 and marriage between them has already duly registered by the Marriage Registration Officer, Gaziabad and to that effect certificate issued by concerned authority has already been produced, therefore, in the fact scenario of the case there is no legal impediment in quashing of the criminal proceeding. 10. Regard being had to the fact that the investigation is still going on and the parties have settled their dispute and to that effect they have already filed separate affidavits before this Court, I am inclined to allow the present petition so as to save the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2. Both the petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2 are major and they have taken decision to marry and lead their life. Further, continuation of the present proceeding will not endure any benefit to either parties and, therefore, in these circumstances subjecting the petitioners to rigors of the trial is destined to be futile exercise. The case of the petitioners is directly covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi & others vs. State of Haryana & another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675. Page 5 of 6 11. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with Nilagiri P.S. Case No.364 of 2024 corresponding to C.T. Case No.736 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Nilagiri, Balasore is quashed qua the petitioners. 12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Jan-2025 12:35:40 Page 6 of 6