The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2358 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Anil Kumar Mantri ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Orissa & another ……. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. P. K. Samantray, Advocate For the Opp. Party No.1 : Mr. B. K. Ragada, Additional Government Advocate
Legal Reasoning
the ground of settlement by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rojalin Rout and another vrs. State of Odisha in CRLMC No.3460 of 2023 and batch. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case was in fact filed due to sheer misunderstanding, no offence has been committed by the petitioner. The opposite party No.2 has now realized his mistake and came forward to settle the dispute. Hence, this is a fit case, where this Court should exercise the inherent jurisdiction contemplated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is well settled by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 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, if the Court at any stage finds that subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of criminal trial would be a futile exercise and there is a bleak chance of securing conviction, the proceeding could be quashed by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Perusal of the materials available on record coupled with the affidavit sworn by the parties and placed before this Court makes out a Page 6 of 8 definite case for quashing of the F.I.R. However, this Court is alive to the fact that the victim girl has been subjected to the trauma of facing police interrogation and subsequently appearing before the trial Court as well as before this Court. Even if it is inferred that the case was filed against the petitioner on sheer misunderstanding, the fact remains that the minor girl has been subjected to appear before the police as well as the Courts, which undoubtedly is traumatic for an innocent child of her age. Therefore, although I am inclined to allow this petition for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioner keeping in view the entirety of the attending circumstances and the judgments cited by the parties at the bar, but this Court imposed a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) on the petitioner. The petitioner has indeed agreed, rather volunteered to deposit the amount. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in a nationalized Bank on fixed terms in the name of the victim girl and the said amount shall be utilized for the purpose of education of the victim girl. The same shall be done within four weeks. Page 7 of 8 9. Subject to the petitioner depositing cost of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the victim girl as directed, the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.S.C), Keonjhar in Special Case No.06 of 2024 arising out of Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No.66 of 2024 and the consequential proceeding arising therefrom are quashed.
Arguments
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. A. K. Raut, Advocate CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 04.09.2024 Date of Judgment: 29.10.2024 S.S. Mishra, J. 1. The petitioner by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is seeking quashing of the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.S.C), Keonjhar in Special Case No.06 of 2024, whereby the learned Court below has framed the charges for the offences punishable under Section 354-A of the I.P.C. read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act against the accused- petitioner. 2. The matter was taken up by this Court on 23.08.2024 and the following order was passed:- <This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). 2. Mr. Ajit Kumar Raut, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the informant/opposite party no.2 by filing Vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 4. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No.66 of 2024 registered under Section 376(1) of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act corresponding to Special Case No.6 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Ad hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTSC), Keonjhar. 5. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was working as Headmaster in Narasinghpur Primary School in which, the victim was studying. On 08.01.2024, the petitioner asked the victim to come to his office room and when she came, the petitioner touched and kissed her private part. The petitioner/accused had forced the victim to keep physical relationship with him and further told the victim not to disclose the same. On the basis of such allegation, the F.I.R. was lodged. Page 2 of 8 6. In this case, after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and subsequent thereto, charges have been framed against the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner has entered into a settlement with opposite party no.2. Therefore, on the ground of settlement, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to quash the entire proceeding. , 7. The petitioner and opposite party no.2 are present in Court today through their respective counsel. They have filed their self attested photocopies of their Aadhar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. They have also filed a joint affidavit dated 23.08.2024, inter alia, stating that due to misunderstanding, the F.I.R. came to be registered against the petitioner and now to maintain the peace and tranquility, on the intervention of the family members and well wishers of both the parties, they have arrived at a settlement. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 is not willing to prosecute the petitioner any more. The affidavit is taken on record. 8. Mr. Ragada, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that he does not have the case diary to assist this Court. Hence, he seeks for an adjournment to obtain the same. 9. List this matter on 3rd of September, 2024. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State shall obtain the case diary. 10. In view of the peculiarity of the present case, the further proceeding in Special Case No.6 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Ad hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTSC), Keonjhar shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.= 3. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner as well as the opposite party No.2 along with the victim girl are present in Court today and they are being represented by their respective counsels. They have Page 3 of 8 also filed their self attested copies of their Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity. 4. The matter was taken up in camera. This Court separately interacted with the victim girl, her mother and the father of the victim girl. The victim girl inter alia stated that she was not sexually exploited by the petitioner. The father of the victim girl stated that due to misunderstanding, the case was filed against the petitioner. The mother of the victim also retorted in the similar line. 5. I have perused the materials on record. It reveals from the materials form part of the charge-sheet that the victim girl was indeed not subjected to penetrative sex. The petitioner has only outraged the modesty of the victim girl by asking her to denude and also alleged to have touched her private parts. That is the reason, although the police had filed the charge-sheet for the alleged offences under Sections 376(3) of I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but the trial Court after evaluating the evidence, has framed the charges against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 354-A of Page 4 of 8 the I.P.C. read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. When the matter stood thus, the parties stated to have settled their dispute. 6. A joint affidavit dated 23.08.2024 has been filed by the petitioner and the opposite party No.2, the father of the victim girl. In the said affidavit, they inter alia stated as under:- <4. That at the intervention of family members and well wishers of both the parties the matter has been amicably settled outside the court. 5. That upon such amicable settlement there is a good relationship is continuing between them. The possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would put both the parties to great oppression, prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them if criminal proceeding is continued any further. 6. That the opp. Party no.2/informant does not want to proceed any further with the criminal proceeding vide Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No.66/2024, corresponding to Special Case No.06/2024, pending in the Court of the learned Adhoc. Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTSC), Keonjhar. 7. That all the parties concerned i.e. petitioner and opp. Party no.2/informant are swearing this affidavit out of their free and sweet will and without any threat, coercion, influence, promise and pressure.= 7. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 jointly prayed for quashing of the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner on Page 5 of 8
Decision
10. With this aforesaid observation, the CRLMC is disposed of. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 29th October, 2024/ Swarna S.S. Mishra (Judge) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 30-Oct-2024 17:36:10 Page 8 of 8