The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3166 of 2024 Jagabandhu Dehury ..... 1) State Of Odisha 2) Chanchala Dehury -versus- ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Parsuram Panda Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv. – Mr. M.R. Mishra, ASC Mr. Biprab Kumar Das, Advocate for the Informant CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 04.09.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant, and the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party No.1. Perused the contents of the application as well as the documents annexed to the said application. 3. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the entire criminal prosecution launched against him vide Kamakhyanagar P.S. Case No.43 of 2009 by the Informant alleging commission of offences under Sections 418/493//312/376/506/34 of I.P.C., Page 1 of 5. corresponding to G.R. Case No.131 of 2009, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 as Informant lodged the F.I.R. on 19.03.2009 before Kamakhyanagar Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the Petitioner by giving a false promise to marry to the Informant had taken the Informant to his house and used her for the purpose of preparing food for the Petitioner on the plea that the sister-in-law is a blind woman and the mother of the Petitioner is a Helper at Anganwadi Centre. It has also been alleged that in the absence of the family members, the Petitioner kept physical relationship with the Informant at his house. Furthermore, when the Informant became pregnant, the Petitioner adulterated some medicine, as a result of which, the Informant had a miscarriage. It has also been alleged that on 02.03.2009, the Petitioner forcibly committed rape on the Informant without her consent. When the matter was reported to the village committee, the Petitioner agreed to marry the Informant. However, he did not keep his promise. Thereafter, the Informant was compelled to approach the President of Dhenkanal District Women’s Social Welfare Committee, after which she came to her village and the Petitioner and his parents accepted her as wife of the Petitioner. Furthermore, while residing in her in-laws house, she was ill-treated by her mother- in-law. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the Petitioner and his family, the Informant lodged the F.I.R. before the Page 2 of 5. Kamakhyanagar Police Station. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset, submitted that there was misunderstanding between the Petitioner and the Informant due to some trivial marital discord. The Petitioner has already accepted her as wife and they are residing together as husband and wife and leading a happy conjugal life. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner refers the Marriage Registration Certificate under Annexure-2 to the application. On Perusal of the said certificate, it appears that the marriage of the Petitioner and the Informant has been registered on 15.11.2021 wherein it has been mentioned that the marriage took place on 15.03.2013. Further, said marriage certificate reveals that date of birth of the Petitioner is 23.04.1980 and that of the wife- Informant is 20.06.1991. Taking note of the aforesaid age, it appears that the Informant was a major girl at the time of registration of the F.I.R. as well as at the time of their marriage on 15.03.2013 which was registered on 15.11.2021. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant contended that both the Petitioner as well as the Informant are living together as husband and wife and leading a happy conjugal life. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the affidavit filed by the Informant on 27.08.2024 which has been sworn by the Informant by remaining present before the Oath Commissioner of this Court. He also referred to the joint affidavit filed by both the Petitioner as well as Informant on the very same day sworn before the Oath Commissioner. On perusal Page 3 of 5. of the affidavit, it appears that the matter has been settled amicably and the Petitioner as well as the Informant as residing cordially. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that even if the matter has been amicably settled between the Petitioner and the Informant and they are living together as husband and wife, the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. as alleged in the F.I.R. does not get obliterated by the mere fact of the said compromise. Therefore, the Petitioner must face trial for such charges. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of the Petitioner for quashing of the proceeding. 8. On a careful analysis of the facts of the present case and further on conspectus of the surrounding facts and circumstances as well as materials on record and, taking note of the age of the victim, who was major girl at the time of registration of the FIR and that in the meantime they are staying together as husband and wife and leading a happy conjugal life, this Court is of the view that any further continuance of the present case after expiry of more than one and half decades since 2009 from the date of registration of the F.I.R., is not in the larger interests of justice and would be an abuse of the process of law. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation for quashing the entire criminal proceeding. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed. Page 4 of 5. Consequently, the prosecution launched against the Petitioner vide G.R. Case No.131 of 2009 on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar stands quashed. The learned S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar or the Court in seisin over the matter shall on receipt of the copy of this order/production of the copy of this order, drop the proceeding in the aforesaid case in compliance of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC is disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Debasis ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5. Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 06-Sep-2024 13:58:13