The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3027 of 2022 Kandarpa Sunani ..... Petitioner 1) State Of Odisha 2) Jayamal Gopal 3) Subhadra Gopal Represented By Adv. - Debabrata Dash -versus- ..... Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv. - M/s. P.P. Behera, B.C. Mohanty, T.S. Singh, L. Senapati, B. Sahoo, S. Mishra, M/s. Maitrijit Mohanty, Mr. M. Mishra, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 10.07.2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Order No. 06. 1. 2. counsel for the Informant. 3. Despite notice to the Informant, none appears on behalf of the Informant when the matter was called for. 4. The present application has been filed by invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Dharamgarh P.S. Case No.118 of 2022 corresponding to C.T. Case No.327/72 of 2022 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Bhawanipatna. Page 1 of 4. 5. The prosecution story in brief is that the Informant, who happens to be the father of the Victim, lodged a written complaint before the Dharamgarh P.S. alleging therein that on 16.05.2022 at about 11 P.M. His daughter (i.e. the Victim) went outside to attend the call of nature, however, she did not return back. Thereafter, they searched for the Victim at different places but they could not trace her out. Accordingly, the matter was reported to the police station. Initially a case was registered under Section 363 of IPC. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted and the Victim was rescued and a final charge-sheet has been filed against the present Petitioner alleging commission of offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the IPC read with Section-6 of POCSO Act. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that both the Petitioner and the Victim are in a love relationship. Although, they decided to marry, however, the father did not agree to such marriage proposal. As a result of which they both decided to flee away from the locality. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Victim, in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. recorded before the learned Magistrate, has stated that she had fled away with the Petitioner willfully on her own volition and the Petitioner did not kidnap her as has been alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Petitioner did not have any physical relationship with the Victim against her will. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, further referring to the Aadhaar Card of the Victim, submitted that the date of birth of the Victim as shown in the record is 12.06.2004. He further contended that in the meantime the Victim has attained majority. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after attaining majority, the victim and the petitioner have married each other on 15.06.2022 and, at the Page 2 of 4. moment they are staying together as husband and wife and leading a happy and conjugal married life. On such grounds learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the Victim is a major girl, she is legally competent to take her own decisions and to select her life partner. He further contended that according to the Victim’s own statement, the Petitioner has not committed any crime at all which would attract the offences under the alleged section. On such grounds, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that any further continuance of the proceeding will be an abuse of the process of law initiated at the instance of the father of the Victim. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.3 on the other hand supported the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner. Further, referring to the joint affidavit filed by both the Opposite Party No.3 and the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 submitted that they are both staying together as husband and wife after their marriage and are leading a happy and conjugal married life. He further contended that the Victim is not interested in continuing with the present proceeding. 9. The victim and the Petitioner are present in Court today and are identified by their respective counsels. A question was posed to the Victim by this Court as to whether the Petitioner had applied any force on the victim. The victim has replied that the Petitioner has not committed any acts on the victim forcibly. She further contended that she eloped with the Petitioner on her own volition. She also contended that they are married now and are staying together as husband and wife. She further stated that she does not want to pursue the present case any further. 10. Although notice has been served on the Informant-father, who has been arrayed as the Opposite Party-2 to the present application. Page 3 of 4. However, non-appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2. According to the Opposite Party No.3, the Opposite Party No.2 has refused to accept the Victim and her relationship with the Petitioner. 11. This Court on a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, further taking note of the progress in the society, this court is of the view that the Victim is major and fit to choose her own life partner. The father of the Victim should have accepted the relationship, however, it is a choice of the Informant-father wherever accept or not accept the Victim and the Petitioner. Legally, the court has to recognize the relationship between two major persons which has been legalized by their marriage. 12. On a careful conspectus of the materials on record, further taking note of the statement of the Victim made before this Court, this Court is of the view that any further continuance of the present proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Further, the continuance of the same would not be in the larger interests of justice, and the Petitioner and Victim. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the criminal proceeding arising out of FIR No.118 dated 18.05.2022 of Dharamgarh P.S. Case No.118 of 2022 corresponding to C.T. Case No.327/72 of 2022 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Bhawanipatna. 13. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed. S.K. Rout Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Jul-2024 13:44:15 ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 4 of 4.