The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC 4104 of 2022 Kirati Sethia …. Petitioner Mr.Debabrata Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.C.Das, A.S.C. Mr.Tukuna Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Party No.3 CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 22.02.2024 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr.Tukuna Mishra, learnd counsel for the victim-Opposite Party No.3. 3. This application has been filed with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in Dharamgarh P.S.Case No.147 of 2020 corresponding to C.T.Case No.425/17 of 2020-22 pending in the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court under POCSO Act, Bhawanipatna. 4. Prosecution story as has been narrated in the F.I.R.is that on 07.11.2020 an F.I.R. was lodged by one Trinath Sagar, Opposite Party No.2, the father of Opposite Party No.3 the victim alleging // 2 // therein that on 04.11.2020 his daughter (Opposite Party No.3) aged about 13 years reading in Kasturaba Gandhi Girls’ School. During COVID pandemic when the School was closed and she was pursuing her study at her home. However, suddenly she disappeared from her residence. Although the family members tried to find her out, however she was not traceable. Later on the informant came to learn that one boy in the village namely, Kirati Sethia, the Petitioner was also missing from the village. Therefore, on suspicion they have lodged an F.I.R. implicating the present Petitioner. While the matter stood thus, the girl was recovered, her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded. In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. which s annexed to the application, the victim, Opposite PartyNo.3 has stated that she was in love relationship with the Petitioner for last one year. She has further stated that her parents were abusing her every day and that when the same became unbearable on 04.11.2020, she called the Petitioner to her house and requested to take her away. Thereafter, they both left the place and went to Kesinga Railway Station and from there they went to Maharastra where the Petitioner was working as a daily wager. She has further stated in her statement that in Maharastra they were staying together as husband and wife and she was in advance stage of pregnancy at the time of recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. On 04.11.2021 they returned to their village as the health condition of the victim deteriorated and accordingly she was undergoing treatment at District H.Qrs Hospital, Bhawanipatna. On 08.11.2021 she discharged from the hospital and went to her in-laws place and staying there thereafter. 5. Referring to the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that both the // 3 // Petitioner and the victim are married and in the meantime blessed with a child. There is absolutely no disturbance or difference of opinion in their life and leading a happy married life with the support of their family. With regard to the age of the victim girl, learned counsel for the Petitioner claimed that she is 19 years now and at the time of recording her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she was 17 years. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that now she has become major and staying as husband and wife and leading a peaceful married life. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the event the criminal proceeding is allowed to continue then the peaceful married life will be disturbed. 6. Learned counsel for the informant, the father of the victim Opposite Party No.3 on the other hand supported the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and submitted that she is staying with her husband i.e. the Petitioner along with a child leading a happy married life. He further contended that in the event the criminal proceeding is allowed to continue, the same would create disturbance in their life. Learned counsel for the victim the Opposite Party No.3 also supported the contentions of the Petitioner. He has also filed an Affidavit in support of his contention, which is on record. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that at the time of occurrence, the victim was a minor. Therefore, a case is well made out against the Petitioner as the consent by a minor is not cognizable under the law. Therefore, the same would still amount to an offence as alleged under the Indian Penal Code. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the application for quashing the proceeding is not maintainable. // 4 // 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, on careful examination of surrounding facts and circumstances and the materials on record particularly the statement of the victim, Opposite Party No.3 recorded under Section 164 C.P.C. as well as the Affidavit filed in Court on behalf of the victim, Opposite Party No.3, this Court found that both the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.3 are major and they were blessed with a child and leading a happy married life with the support of the family of the Petitioner. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, the informant. So far Opposite Party No.2, the informant is concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 11.05.2023 passed in ABLAPL No.11800 of 2022, submitted that while considering the bail application of the present Petitioner, this Court vide order dated 11.05.2023 pursuant to the order dated 08.05.2023 the victim and the informant appeared before this Court on 11.05.2023 through virtual mode. Further, it reveals that on being query made by the Court the victim stated that she does not want to proceed with the case against the Petitioner. In the aforesaid factual backdrops, this Court is of the considered view that the further continuance of the criminal proceeding would not be in the larger interest of justice and also not in the interest of Opposite Party No.3, the victim and the Petitioner who are married and leading a happy married life and blessed with a child. In such facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to quash the criminal proceeding in Dharamgarh P.S.Case No.147 of 2020 corresponding to C.T.Case No.425/17 of 2020-22 pending in the Court of the leaned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Courts under POCSO Act, Bhawanipatna. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal proceeding vide Dharamgarh // 5 // P.S.Case No.147 of 2020 corresponding to C.T.Case No.425/17 of 2020-22 pending in the Court of the leaned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Courts under POCSO Act, Bhawanipatna is hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly CRLMC stands allowed. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 27-Feb-2024 12:17:16