The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3396 of 2022 Sk. Sadam …. Petitioners Mr. G.P. Jena, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. A.K. Apat, Addl. P.P. Mr. R.R. Das, Advocate for O.P. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 09. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 03.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the Parties. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 26.07.2022 wherein the learned Additional Special Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Balasore took cognizance of the offences under Sections 363/366/376(2) (n) IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act in special case No.189 of 2022 arising out of 1CC Case No.179 of 2021 corresponding to Jaleswar P.S. Case No.196 of 2021. 3. The background facts of the case are that one Nitya Narayan Parida lodged a written report before the IIC, Jaleswar P.S. alleging that his daughter was missing from his house on 06.06.2021 and, despite a thorough search, her whereabouts could not be traced. He further alleged that, to his knowledge, one Sk. Sadam had kidnapped her. However, later the daughter Page 1 of 9 of the complainant was traced and the informant took the custody of her daughter upon execution of an undertaking by him before the Police Station at Bhogarai as well as before the court at Jaleswar. However, once again, the daughter of the complainant left the house without informing anybody and accordingly, a complaint was lodged on 06.06.2021 before the Jaleswar Police Station. On the basis of the report, Jaleswar P.S. Case No.196 of 2021 was registered and investigation commenced. Upon investigation, the police submitted a final report mentioning it to be a mistake of fact, whereupon the complainant lodged a protest petition. The learned Court, having considered the allegations made in the protest petition, took cognizance of the offence and registered ICC Case No.179 of 2021, upon compliance with the procedures required after submission of a protest petition. 4. Mr. G. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of the hearing of the matter, submitted that the victim had left her house on her own volition and married the accused, namely Sk. Sadam, and that out of the wedlock a child was born to the couple. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that, having regard to the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. as well as 164 Cr.P.C., there is no element of kidnapping or sexual abuse alleged by the victim, and as such, the cognizance taken of the offences on the face of such statements cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Taking this Court through the statement of the victim, the learned counsel for the Petitioner also pointed out that the victim has clearly and unequivocally stated that she left her house of her own volition, Page 2 of 9 without any allurement or kidnapping by anyone, including the said Sk. Sadam. In her statement, she further mentioned that she had gone to the house of one of her friends at Cuttack and later, having come know that a case had been registered, she returned home. As far as her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the victim made a similar declaration. 5. However, in the course of these proceedings, an affidavit has been filed by the complainant reiterating the statements of the victim and further stating that, in view of subsequent developments, since his daughter has married the accused and they are living together as husband and wife, blessed with a child, and that as the act of the victim was voluntary, he does not wish to proceed further in the matter. Mr. Jena further submitted that a similar affidavit has also been furnished by Opposite Party No.3, the victim, namely Aziza Parbin (earlier known as Ankita Parida). In her detailed affidavit, she too affirmed that, out of her love with Sk. Sadam, she married him under Muslim law, and the Nikah was performed on 21.02.2023. After marriage, her name was changed from Ankita Parida to Aziza Parbin, and a child, namely Shaikh Muhammad Sami, was born to them on 27.11.2024. She further affirmed that she is residing with Sk. Sadam as his wife and they are maintaining a blissful married life. It is finally submitted that in the event of quashing the FIR and/or the cognizance, invoking the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused would be relieved of the liability to face trial. Page 3 of 9 6. The aforesaid contentions would have been appropriate in a case where, on the face of the FIR, or in the absence of material apparent on the face of the record, the cognizance would have been taken by the Court. 7. In the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2012 10 SCC 303 held as follows: - in this matter “...The offence alleged is non compoundable, however Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution becomes the lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. This court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and feels that whether dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are relatives, neighbours or having business relationship and which does not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to maintain harmonious relationships between the two sides & for restitution of relationship. and with a view them the dispute permanently, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings initiated thereto.” in between to end-up 8. However, having regard to the nature of offences alleged in which the cognizance has been taken, the further proceeding in the case on the basis of a compromise arrived Page 4 of 9 between the victim and the accused would not be proper, more so when the victim was minor at the relevant time. 9. In the matter of Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 865, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under – Thus, in unambiguous terms this Court held “25. that before exercising the power under Section 482, Cr. PC the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime besides observing and holding that heinous and serious offences could not be quashed even though a victim or victim’s family and the offender had settled the dispute. This Court held that such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. Having understood the position of law on the second question that it is the bounden duty of the court concerned to consider whether the compromise is just and fair besides being free from undue pressure we will proceed to consider the matter further. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 04.02.2022 would reveal that the High Court has erred in not bestowing proper consideration the law laid down in Gian Singh’s case (supra) while rendering the same. The impugned order would reveal that the allegations contained in the subject FIR was not at all even adverted to, before quashing the same. We have referred to the allegations which are of serious nature revealed from the FIR. The complaint in this case is annexed to the FIR produced in this proceeding as Annexure P-1. In the said complaint which led to the registration of the FIR reads thus:- “Hence my report may be lodged and action may be taken against the offender Vimal Kumar Gupta as he is making pressure on me not to lodge report.” (underline supplied) In this context, it is to be noted that the 26. complaint which led to the registration of the FIR was filed on 08.01.2022 and the compromise was Page 5 of 9 entered into between the third and fourth respondents within a few weeks thereafter viz., on 31.01.2022. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that without even referring to the alleged offence and thereby without looking into the nature and gravity of the offence, solely relying upon the compromise, the High Court observed thus:- “This Court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and feels that whether dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are relatives, neighbours or having business relationship and which does not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to maintain harmonious for relationships between the two sides & restitution of relationship and with a view to end- up the dispute in between them permanently, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to the FIR and all other subsequent quash proceedings initiated thereto. Here in this case, though the offences are not compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is essentially in between the parties which is not-affecting public peace and tranquillity therefore with a view to maintain the harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.” (underline supplied) It is also to be noted that after quashing the 27. FIR and further proceedings, the SHO of the Police Station concerned was directed to file a closure report with the concerned Judicial Magistrate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. A bare perusal of the impugned order and in 28. the light of the observations and binding conclusions in Gian Singh’s case (supra), bearing in mind the allegations in the subject FIR, it would reveal that the High Court has misread and misapplied the law laid Page 6 of 9 down in Gian Singh’s case (supra) to quash the subject FIR and all further proceedings based in pursuance thereof. We are at a loss to understand how the High Court arrived at the conclusion that in the case on hand a dispute to be resolved exists between the parties and further that to maintain harmony the FIR and all further proceedings thereto should be quashed even without adverting to the allegations raised against the 3rd respondent in the subject FIR. It is also a fact that though in terms of the decision in Gian Singh’s case (supra) an irrecusable duty of the Court to consider whether the compromise could be acted upon or not in the interest of justice, the impugned order would reveal that the High Court has failed to bestow proper consideration in that regard as well. ××× ××× ××× In this regard, it is relevant to note that in the 30. case on hand the victim was then a student of Class 11th in the Higher Secondary aged 16 years. The statement annexed to the FIR of the complainant viz., the 4th respondent itself would reveal that on 08.01.2022 he complained about the pressure from the 3rd respondent to restrain him from lodging report. The compromise was entered immediately thereafter on 31.01.2022. Despite the said position, the Court has not chosen to consider whether the compromise entered into between the parents and the accused could be acted upon or not, in the interest of justice, taking note of the serious allegations levelled against the 3rd accused and in view of the law laid down in Gian Singh’s case (supra). In that context, it is relevant to refer to a decision of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Sunil Raikwar v. State and Another1. Paragraph 12 therein, to the extent it is relevant reads thus:- “12. The father of the victim cannot be permitted to settle the dispute with the accused. He is not the victim and the courts have to safeguard and protect the interest of children against onslaught 1 2021 SCC OnLine Del 258 Page 7 of 9 by bad forces. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the accused is being prosecuted for an offence that shocks the value system of a society and this is not a matter that can be permitted to be settled as a compoundable minor offence. Deterrence to others committing similar offence is a must and they cannot get a signal that anything be and compromised......” everything can ××× ××× ××× 33. In view of the reasons as aforesaid and in the light of the decisions referred supra, the impugned order dated 04.02.2022 of the High Court in the FIR S.B.C.R.M.P. No.1348/2022, quashing further No.6/2022 dated 08.01.2022 and all proceedings pursuant thereto solely on the ground that the accused and the complainant had settled the matter, invites interference. We have no hesitation to hold that in cases of this nature, the fact that in view of compromise entered into between the parties, the chance of a conviction is remote and bleak also cannot be a ground to abruptly terminate the investigation, by quashing FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, by invoking the power said under Section 482, Cr. P.C. circumstances, The impugned order dated this appeal is allowed. 04.02.2022 of in S.B.C.R.M.P. No.1348/2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the FIR No.6/2022, investigation and criminal proceedings pursuant thereto subject to the nature of the report to be filed under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C., be proceeded with against the accused, in accordance with law. the High Court the In 10. Having regard to the aforesaid views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the circumstances appearing in the case at hand, it is admitted that the victim girl belongs to the Hindu community and is allegedly to have married the accused, who belongs to Muslim community. Page 8 of 9 11. The compromise affidavit reveals that a Nikah was performed between the parties after the victim left the company of her parents. Admittedly, the victim was seventeen years of age at the time when she left her parental home. 12. Considering the aforesaid aspects, this Court is not inclined to invoke the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the cognizance taken by the learned Court below. 13. In view of the discussions made as above, it is directed that the accused shall appear forthwith before the court in seisin of the matter on or before 17th of September 2025. Upon such appearance, the learned court shall not pass any adverse order against him but to regularize the matter in order to proceed further for the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that the trial court concerned shall not be influenced by any observations made herein while entering trial and shall deal with case independent of the observations. 14. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands disposed of. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Sarbani Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-Sep-2025 16:18:29 Page 9 of 9