The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 14. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.6151 of 2014 Bijaya Bishi …. State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Opp. Parties Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA, CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 02.04.2025 1. Heard. 2. At the instance of the Opposite Party No.2- Informant-Surya Kumar Sahoo, the F.I.R. in connection with Dungripali P.S. Case No.30 of 2013 corresponding to Special G.R. Case No.06 of 2020 came to be registered against the petitioner for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section- 363/366 of the IPC, now pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sonepur. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the opposite party No.2 reported the case at Dungripali P.S. alleging that, on 20/21.03.2013 at about 1.30 am, while the Opposite Party No.2 wake up for toilet, he did not find his daughter in her bed where she was Page 1 of 5 sleeping. It is further alleged that after such incident, he informed her wife about the missing of his daughter. They both went for search of her missing daughter and could not able to trace her. So, they suspect the petitioner might have kidnapped their minor daughter. Hence, the F.I.R. 4. Investigation of the case is completed and the final form under Section-173 of the Cr.P.C. has not yet been filed, but at this stage, the petitioner and the Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have entered into settlement. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 23 years old whereas the opposite party No.3 is 19 years of old. The petitioner has married to opposite party no.3 and blessed with a girl child, and she was born on 01.12.2014. 6. The petitioner, victim and the father of the victim along with the child are present in VC today represented by their counsels. They have also filed the photocopies of their self-attested Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. 7. The parties have settled their dispute and the opposite party No.2-Informant, filed an affidavit dated 03.01.2020, inter alia, stating as under:- “1. That, the petitioner has filed the abovementioned case with a prayer to quash the proceeding vide G.R. Case No.45 of 2013 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C, S.Rampur. 2. That, I am the informant to the case i.e. Dungripali P.S. Case No. 30/13. 3. That, it is stated here that the matter Page 2 of 5 has been amicably compromised between the parties and my daughter and the present petitioner have already married each other and leading a happy conjugal life. 4. That, for the better interest of my daughter and her family I do not want to proceed further in this case and 1 have also no objection if the proceeding against the petitioner is quashed on the ground of compromise”. 8. The opposite party No.3-victim has also filed an affidavit dated 13.01.2020 inter alia stating as under:- “1. That, the petitioner has filed the abovementioned case with a prayer to quash the proceeding vide G.R. Case No.45 of 2013 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C, S.Rampur. 2. That, I am the daughter of the Informant to the case i.e. Dungripali P.S. Case No. 30/13. 3. That, it is stated here that the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and myself and the present petitioner have already married each other and leading a happy conjugal life. 4. That, for the better interest of my daughter and her family I do not want to proceed further in this case and 1 have also no objection if the proceeding against the petitioner is quashed on the ground of compromise”. 9. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in Fayazuddin Khan @ Badal Khan v. State of Odisha & Ors. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 43 and Rojalin Rout & another Vrs. State of Odisha and another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1339, submits that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered Page 3 of 5 by the aforementioned judgments. The facts of the present case resembles with case cited before this Court by Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Counsel. 10. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1-State submits that the dispute between the parties have been settled and the victim and the accused have already married and bless with a daughter, therefore, to save the family this court may grant indulgence in this matter as there is no legal impediment in quashing the F.I.R. 11. Regard being had to the submissions made above, and the petitioner has already married to the opposite party no.3 and blessed with a girl child. Both the petitioner and the opposite party no.3 are young and so as to save their marital life, which has been accepted by the families of the petitioner and opposite parties, I am inclined to allow the present petition. In the fact scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of trial at this stage would be a futile exercise. The present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303; B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition Page 4 of 5 deserves merit. 12. Taking into consideration the aforementioned judgments, the facts of the case and submissions made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Dungripali P.S. Case No.30 of 2013 corresponding to Special G.R. Case No.06 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sonepur and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed. 13. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Judge (S.S. Mishra) Narayan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Apr-2025 17:42:09 Page 5 of 5