The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4622 of 2024 Umesh Kumar Sharma & others …. Petitioners Mr.D.K.Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Parties Mrs. Sarita Mahrana, ASC and Mr. Parsuram Panda, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 02. 1. Heard.
Decision
ORDER 03.02.2025 2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Sundargarh Town P.S. Case No.161 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.752 of 2018 came to be registered against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 493/417/313/294/354/341/323/506/34 of the IPC, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh. Page 1 of 6 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 16.08.2018, the opposite party No.2 lodged the complaint alleging that, the petitioner No.1 came in contact with her and kept physical relationship with her since 2009 to 2011, as a result of which the opposite party No.2 became pregnant. After knowing this fact, the accused took her to Patrapada clinic and aborted her pregnancy. Thereafter, the accused kept physical relationship with her on regular intervals. When the opposite party No.2 told the accused to marry her, he denied to marry her. Hence, the F.I.R. 4. After the investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 31.12.2018 for alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 354-B/ 341/ 294/ 323/ 506/34 of the IPC. The cognizance of the said offences has been taken by the trial Court vide order dated 18.01.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the matter is pending before the trial Court for appearance. The charge has not yet been framed in the present case. 6. Before the trial is commenced in the present case, the parties have entered into a settlement. On the basis of the settlement terms, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners. 7. The petitioner Nos.1, 4 & 5 are physically present in the Court today, whereas the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are absent. The petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the father and Page 2 of 6 mother of the petitioner No.1. They are senior citizens. They are suffering from several ailments. Therefore, their personal appearance sought to be exempted. Accordingly, an application has been moved by them. The same is taken on record. For the reasons stated in the said application, it is allowed. The personal appearance of the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 is exempted. 8. The petitioner Nos.1, 4 & 5 are present in the Court today. They are being represented by their respective counsels and identified by them. Equally, the opposite party No.2, the informant is also represented by her counsel and identified by him. They have also filed the photocopies of their self-attested Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. 9. The opposite party No.2, the victim, who is present in the Court today, has also filed an affidavit dated 06.01.2025, inter alia, stating as under: “2. That, due to some misunderstanding I lodged a report against the petitioners in an offence u/s. 493/ 417/ 313/ 354/ 341/323/506/34 of IPC. After completion of the investigation the IO of the the case submitted petitioners 354-B/ 341/294/323/506/34 of IPC and the case is pending before the learned SDJM, Sundargarh for adjudication. charge sheet against an offence u/s. in 3. That, due to compromise between us I filed an affidavit before this Hon’ble Court on 06.01.2025. 4. That, the matter was listed before this Hon’ble Court on 12.01.2023 and on being queried by this Hon’ble Court about the compromise. I was not properly answered about the compromise rather cried by remembering my past relationship. Page 3 of 6 5. That, this deponent respectfully submitted here that the matter has already compromised between us and I have no objection if the proceeding will be quashed in the present stage, against all the petitioners. 6. That, in the meantime I have handed over a Memo of Undertaking to my counsel to drop the proceeding, which is pending before the learned SDJM, Sundargarh. 7. That, I am highly educated girl and knowing everything I filed this affidavit on my own will without any pressure and instigation. Today I have also come to High Court to furnish this affidavit out of my own volition. 8. That, without fear, favour and coercion, I swear this affidavit on my free will.” 10. When the matter was taken up in the morning, Mrs. Sarita Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State was asked by this Court to interact with the victim, opposite party No.2. She has interacted with the victim and submits that, the opposite party No.2 is not willing to prosecute the petitioner any more for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner No.1 has already married somewhere else and secondly, the pendency of the present case is hampering her career prospective. At the same time, she has also expressed the ordeal she has gone through at the instance of petitioner No1. Since it is not relevant for the purpose of the present case, I am not inclined to narrate the same in this proceeding. However, the fact remains that the parties have settled their dispute. They have filed the affidavit Page 4 of 6 before this Court underlining the settlement terms. 11. Mrs. Sarita Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1-State submits that, the charge sheet in the present case has been filed on the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Section 354- B/341/294/323/506/34 of the IPC. Regard being had to the nature of the offences for which the charge sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court can give indulgence for quashing of the present proceeding on the basis of the settlement terms, as there is no legal impediment involved in this case. 12. Since the parties have settled their dispute and filed the affidavit in that respect, no fruitful purpose would be served in the continuation of the proceeding before the court below. Therefore, the present petition deserves merit because subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of the trial would be a futile exercise. In view of the same, the present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303; B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709. 13. Taking into consideration the aforementioned judgments, the facts of the case and submissions Page 5 of 6 made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Sundargarh Town P.S. Case No.161 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.752 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed, subject to the petitioners paying cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to the opposite party No.2 and file the receipt thereon. 14. The petitioner No.1 has handed over a cheque of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the opposite party No 2 and assured that the cheque will be honoured by his banker on presentation. The assurance is taken on record as an undertaking. 15. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Judge Subhasis (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 04-Feb-2025 17:52:16 Page 6 of 6