Orissa High Court
Umesh And Another vs State Of Odisha And Another …. … on 20 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.189 of 2025
Umesh and another .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. S. K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. M. K. Mohanty, ASC
Mr. A. R. Das, Advocate for O.P.2
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 20.01.2025 05. 1. Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. dated
14.11.2024 in Nilagiri P.S. Case No.364 of 2024 came to be
registered against the petitioners for the alleged commission of
offences under Sections 376(1)/313/417/506/34 of I.P.C..
3. The allegation against the petitioners are that, on
14.11.2024, the informant being the opposite party No.2 lodged a
written report before the Nilagir P.S. alleging therein that she had
love relationship with the petitioner No.1. They met through
Instagram handle communication. They remained in touch for a
period of three years, the petitioner No.1 came to Odisha and stayed
Page 1 of 6
at Hotel Binayak, Nilagiri. It is alleged by the informant that the
petitioner No.1 brought her to Panchalingeswar temple and put
vermillion and Mangalasutra and kept physical relationship in the
hotel and claimed to be his wife. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1
forced to the informant to go with him to Delhi for preparation of
civil service coaching. While the informant was staying at the hotel
at Delhi, the petitioner No.1 had threatened her and regularly
calling her to his house and kept physical relationship with her, as a
result of which, she became pregnant. When the petitioner No.1
came to know about the pregnancy, he forced to aborted the child
by giving Rs.10,000/- to the doctor and thereafter sent her to
Odisha. It is further alleged that when the informant was staying at
Odisha, the petitioner No.1 stopped talking and gave life
threatening to her. Hence, the F.I.R.
4. The petitioners and the opposite party No.2 are present in
the Court and being represented and identified by their respective
counsels. They have also filed self-attested copies of their Aadhaar
Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record.
5. The investigation in the present case is still going on. At
this stage, the parties have settled their dispute. The petitioner No.1
Page 2 of 6
and the opposite party No.2 has already been married before the
Marriage Registration Officer, Ghaziabad.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the
Aadhar Card and Educational certificate submits that the date of
birth of the victim girl is 17.04.2004. Therefore, she has attained the
age of majority. The petitioner no.1 and the victim has already
married and registered their marriage before the Marriage
Registration Officer, Gaziabad, U.P. and certificate to that effect
issued by the Marriage Registration Officer dated 09.12.2024 is
also placed on record.
7. Opposite party no.2 is present in Court and has filed an
affidavit dated 20.01.2025 stating inter alia as under:-
“2. That it is humbly submittd that that victim
(deponent) Namely Jyotsnarani Dash aged about 20
years D/o- Subhranshu Sekhar Dash of village
Radhikadeiput, PS-Nilagiri, Dist- Balasore has
lodged an FIR, against the petitoier no.1 Umesh @
Dagar aged about 22 years, D/o- Mr. Jagatsingh,
At/Po- Gidoh Chhata, P.S. Kosikalan, Diost-
Mathura, (Uttar Pradesh) (deponent) as well as
petitioner no.2 namely Prem Singh (34), S/o. Dattak
Putr Karan Singh, At- Phulwna, Kadauna, P.S/Dist-
Mathura, State- Uttar Pradesh in connection with
Nilagiri, P.S. Case No.364/2024 corresponding to
C.T. Case No.736/2024 which is now pending in the
Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Nilagiri, Dist-
Balasore, for the commission of offences U/s.
376(1)/313/417/506/34 of IPC.
3. That it is humbly submitted that the informant
(deponent) is a major girl and both the petitioner
No.1 and the informant have already been married atPage 3 of 6
Aryasamaj and also before the marriage officer
Ghaziabad (U.P.) and now both are leading a happy
conjugal life.
4. That it is humbly submitted that now both the
informant and the petitioner No.1 after marriage are
now leading a happy conjugal life and if the criminal
proceeding will be continued then their conjugal life
will be hampered. It is humbly submitted that the
aforesaid matter has also been settled between the
petitioners and the victim (informant). It is also
humbly submitted that victim (informant) do not want
to proceed further on the aforesaid criminal case
against the petitioners filed by the deponent.
5. That it is humbly submitted that though the
petitioner No.1 as well as the informant have already
married and leading a happy conjugal life and the
matter has also been settled, then under such
circumstances continuation of criminal proceeding
against the petitioners will only abuse the process of
Court and will kill the valuable time of the Court.
Accordingly under such circumstances, the informant
(deponent) has no objection for quashing of criminal
proceeding against the petitioners.”
8. On the query from the Court, the opposite party No.2, who
is present in Court has stated that the dispute has already been
resolved between petitioner no.1 and her and, as such, she has no
grievance left against the petitioner. Hence she joins with the
petitioners seeking quashing of the criminal prosecution initiated by
her against the petitioners.
9. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State submits that the dispute has already been resolved by the
parties and investigation in the case is still going on. The opposite
Page 4 of 6
party no.2, who is major and chosen to marry the petitioner no.1
and marriage between them has already duly registered by the
Marriage Registration Officer, Gaziabad and to that effect
certificate issued by concerned authority has already been
produced, therefore, in the fact scenario of the case there is no legal
impediment in quashing of the criminal proceeding.
10. Regard being had to the fact that the investigation is still
going on and the parties have settled their dispute and to that effect
they have already filed separate affidavits before this Court, I am
inclined to allow the present petition so as to save the marriage
between the petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2. Both the
petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2 are major and they have
taken decision to marry and lead their life. Further, continuation of
the present proceeding will not endure any benefit to either parties
and, therefore, in these circumstances subjecting the petitioners to
rigors of the trial is destined to be futile exercise. The case of the
petitioners is directly covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi & others vs.
State of Haryana & another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675.
Page 5 of 6
11. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with
Nilagiri P.S. Case No.364 of 2024 corresponding to C.T. Case
No.736 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.,
Nilagiri, Balasore is quashed qua the petitioners.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Ashok
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB
MOHAPATRA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 21-Jan-2025 12:35:40
Page 6 of 6
[ad_1]
Source link