Orissa High Court
Dambrudhar Nayak @ vs State Of Odisha …. Opp. Party on 16 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4680 of 2024
Dambrudhar Nayak @ .... Petitioner
Dambarudhar Mr. Susil
Kumar
Pattnaik,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Mrs.Sarita
Maharana, ASC
& Mr.
K.N.Mohapatra,
Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 16.04.2025
04.
1.
Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the
F.I.R. in connection with Bonai P.S. Case No.09 of
2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.38 of 2020 came
to be registered against the petitioner for the alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections
376(1)/417/294/506 of the IPC, pending in the Court
of learned S.D.J.M., Bonai.
3. The complainant reported at P.S. alleging therein
Page 1 of 5
that, she was working as a daily labourer at San Siba
Nath Getti Crosser since seven years. The petitioner
was working as a supervisor of that crosser. The
petitioner was threatening to take away her job, but
she requested him to not to do this. The petitioner, by
taking her request as opportunity, tried to get physical
satisfaction from her without her consent. Hence, the
F.I.R.
4. After the investigation, the charge sheet has been
filed in the present case. Subsequent thereto, vide
order dated 18.09.2020, the learned S.D.J.M., Bonai
has taken the cognizance of the offence punishable
under Section 376(2)(f)(n) of the IPC against the
petitioner.
5. Before the charge is framed and the trial is
commenced, the parties have entered into a
settlement. On the basis of the settlement terms, the
present petition has been filed.
6. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 are
present in the Court today. The parties have filed joint
affidavit dated 15.04.2025, inter alia stating as under:
” 1. That, we both petitioner and Opp. Party No.
2 of this CRLMC with consent had kept physical
relationship with each. But, due to some
differences arose between us, out of anger, the
informant lodged an F.I.R. on dtd. 22.01.2020
making some heinous allegation against the
petitioner. As a result the I.I.C., Bonai has lodged
an F.I.R. bearing No. 09/2020 u/s.376(1), 417,
294, 506 I.P.C., which relates to G.R. Case No.
38/2020 now pending in the Court S.D.J.M.,
Bonai for adjudication.
Page 2 of 5
2. That, after registration of case, we both the
parties understood our fault and in the presence
of our well wishers, family members and local
Sarpanch, we both the parties decided to remain
separate to lead peaceful life.
3. That, as per the affidavit made between us at
Annexure-4, we have decided to remain in peace
and to lead peaceful life, forgetting the past
events keeping an eye to our future.
4. That out of their love relationship, one female
child was born and the Petitioner has already
paid an amount of Rs. 1Lakhs towards the care
and maintenance of the Informant and her
daughter.
5. That, due to abovesaid decisions we do not
want to proceed further in the abvoesaid criminal
proceeding pendency of which may create
disturbances, in our future life.”
7. The opposite party No.2 and her father are present
before this Court and on the query from the Court,
they state that the opposite No.2 has already been
settled in her life and she has been blessed with two
children. She does not want to proceed against the
petitioner anymore. Pendency of the prosecution
against the petitioner has all potential to create
marital dispute in her life. Similarly, the father of the
opposite party No.2 also submits that he does not
want to proceed against the petitioner and he wants to
put a quietus to the dispute with the petitioner so that
the marital life of his daughter will continue
uninterruptedly and without any disturbance.
8. Mrs. Maharana, learned Additional Standing
Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1-State
Page 3 of 5
submits that the parties have already settled their
dispute and they have filed the joint affidavit to that
effect. The petitioner is 45 years age and the opposite
party No.2 is 43 years age. They have taken a
conscious decision to put a quietus to the dispute in
entirety. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in
quashing the F.I.R.
9. I have perused the charge sheet and the evidence
form part of the charge sheet. I have also perused the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of
the Cr. P.C., which indicates that the opposite party
No.2 was in relationship with the petitioner and under
that pretext, the petitioner had committed sexual
intercourse with the opposite party No.2. Both the
parties have already married.
10. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have
settled their dispute and they have also file the joint
affidavit to that effect, I am inclined to allow the
present petition. In the fact scenario of the present
case, subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of trial is
destined to be a futile exercise. 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 Jiwajirao Scindia & another v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others,
Page 4 of 5
reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition
deserves merit.
11. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions
made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Bonai
P.S. Case No.09 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.38 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned
S.D.J.M., Bonai and the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed,
subject petitioner paying a cost of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees thirty thousand) to the opposite party No.2
and furnishing receipt thereon.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 17-Apr-2025 18:54:35
Page 5 of 5
[ad_1]
Source link