The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3328 of 2024 Nitin Kumar Samal …. Petitioner Mr. D.K. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA Mr. G. Singh, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
Order No. 02. 1. 2. ORDER 12.11.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the instance of the opposite party no.2, the F.I.R., i.e., Pattamundai P.S. Case No.180 of 2024 came to be registered against the petitioner under Sections 341/294/376/506/ of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(v)/2(2)(va) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara. 3. The prosecution case is that the informant and the petitioner were reading in one class eleven years before. After attaining the majority, they traveled so many places and resided in different places. Thereafter, the petitioner has given assurance to marry to the informant after completion of marriage of Page 1 of 5 his brother. After the marriage of his brother, the petitioner denied to marry the informant. Hence, the FIR. 4. The petitioner and opposite party no.2 appeared before this Court in persons being identified by their respective counsel and have filed their self-attested xerox copies of Aadhar Card to establish their identity. 5. When the investigation of the aforementioned FIR was going on, the petitioner had married opposite party no.2. The petitioner has placed on record the proof of marriage by way of a Certificate issued by Shree Shree Gopaljew Temple, Kendrapara. He submitted that he married the opposite party no.2 on 20.08.2024. The parties have filed an affidavit dated 12.11.2024, inter alia, stating as under: “2. That fact remains we both are major and fall in love with each other after attaining majority thereafter our love relation continue for some period but unfortunately due to some misunderstanding and differences of opinion there was the break up in our relation and we both separated with each other for some period thereafter the petitioner deny for marriage for which finding no other alternative I filed the FIR before the pattamundai police station in which pattamundai ps case no 180/2024 was registered for the above offences. 3, That, in the meantime we both the family settle the matter out of court in presence of the local gentles and well wisher and we both married to each other and at present we are residing peacefully as husband and wife in the house of the present petitioner from the date of our marriage on 20.08.2024 and I have no interest at all to proceed further in this case. 4. That, continuance of the above case before the court below is only the misuse of the court time ultimately the cases will be completed in acquittal Page 2 of 5 for which to save the time and for the interest of both the parties the informant and the petitioner file this joint affidavit before the Hon’ble court for quashing for the FIR and proceeding there on.” 6. The informant has also filed an affidavit dated 03.09.2024 reiterating the same fact, which reads as under: of the the offences under relation continue “1. That, I am the informant in Pattamundai PS Case no.180/2024 which has already been registered against the present petitioner for the commission section IPC and section 341/294/376/506 of 3(2)(v)/3(2)(VA) of the SC and ST act and at present the above case is pending before the learned Dist and sessions Judge, Kendrapara for the further proceeding. 2. That, we both are major and fall in love with each other after attaining majority there after our for some period but love unfortunately due to some misunderstanding and differences of opinion there was the break up in our relation and we both separated with each other for some period thereafter the petitioner deny for marriage for which finding no other alternative I filed the FIR before the pattamundai police station in which pattamundai ps case no 180/2024 was registered for the above offences. 3, That, in the meantime we both the family settle the matter out of court in presence of the local gentles and well wisher and we both married to each other and at present we are residing peacefully as husband and wife in the house of the present petitioner from the date of our marriage on 20.08.2024 and I have no interest at all to proceed further in this case. 4. That, continuance of the above case before the court below is only the misuse of the court time ultimately the cases will be completed in acquittal for which to save the time and for the interest of both the parties the informant and the petitioner file this joint affidavit before the Hon’ble court for quashing for the FIR and proceeding there on.” 7. On the query from this Court, the opposite party Page 3 of 5 no.2, who is present in Court today has stated that she is living happily with the petitioner and she has no grievance against the petitioner. Therefore, she does not want to proceed against the petitioner. 8. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the State submits that since the parties have already settled their dispute and the petitioner has already married the opposite party no.2, this Court can give indulgence, there being no legal impediment. 9. Taking into the aforementioned circumstances and since the parties have already settled their dispute, the present petition is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, B.S. Joshi & others vs. State of Haryana & another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madhavraoji Wajirao Scindia and another Vrs. Sambajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC. Therefore, subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of trial will be a futile exercise, I am inclined to quash the criminal proceeding. 10. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case and submissions made at bar, Pattamundai P.S. Case No.180 of 2024, corresponding to T.R. Case No.112 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara and the consequential proceedings arising Page 4 of 5 therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed. The petitioner is directed to register his marriage with the opposite party no.2. 11. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. amit (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Nov-2024 09:53:59 Page 5 of 5