Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 135 (ORI)

Ajaya Kumar Das v. State of Orissa and two

2005-02-21

A.K.PARICHHA

body2005
ORDER 21.02.2005 — In this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed to quash the order of cognizance passed by the learned SDJM, Champua for the offence under Section 363, IPC in G.R. Case No.39 of 2003. Basing on an F.I.R. lodged by opposite party No.2, Champua P.S. Case No.21 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. Case No.39 of 2003 of the Court of learned SDJM, Champua under Section 363, IPC was registered.After investigation in that case, charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioner under Section 363, IPC and basing on the charge-sheet and the case diary, the learned SDJM took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present peti¬tion under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the said order of cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the peti¬tioner and opposite party No.3 (the alleged kidnapped girl) have married and are living as husband and wife. But due to some misunderstanding the father of the victim girl lodged an F.I.R. which culminated in submission of charge-sheet. He submits that after realizing the true situation, the parties have now amicably settled the matter and are not interested in the continuance of the G.R. Case No.39 of 2003 and for allowing the petitioner and opposite party No.3 to lead a happy conjugal life. They want that the cognizance order passed against the petitioner be quashed. In support of the plea, an affidavit has been filed by the inform¬ant, opposite party No.2 indicating therein that the petitioner and opposite party No.3 have married before the Marriage Regis¬tration Officer, Chhenai on 16.7.2003 and they are living happily as husband and wife and for the welfare of the couple, he does not to press the allegations made in the F.I.R. Opposite party No.3, has also filed an affidavit in the same line. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that although techni¬cally the offence under Section 366 is prima facie made out, but in view of the observation given by the Apex Court in the case of Fagle Gaffar Khan v. State of W.B., 2000 SCC (Cri) 686, this Court can consider the plea of the petitioner. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that although techni¬cally the offence under Section 366 is prima facie made out, but in view of the observation given by the Apex Court in the case of Fagle Gaffar Khan v. State of W.B., 2000 SCC (Cri) 686, this Court can consider the plea of the petitioner. In the case of Fagle Gaffar Khan v. State of W.B. (supra), the apex Court observed that where the victim girl is a major and has married the accused-petitioner voluntarily and after marriage both are living happily continuance of the proceeding under Sec¬tion 366, IPC on the allegation of kidnapping will not only cause a dent in their blissful married life, but will also ultimately prejudice all the parties and will amount to abuse of the process of law. This ratio has been followed in a number of cases by this Court including the case of Surajit Patra and another v. State of Orissa,* (2003) 25 OCR 660. In the case of Payal Sharma v. Super¬intendent, Nari Niketan, AIR 2001 All. 254 also it was observed that a major girl has a right to go any where and live with any one. In the present case, the victim girl is admittedly a major and she has given affidavit that she married the petitioner out of her free will and is living happily with the petitioner. The father of the victim girl has also given an affidavit that there has been a valid marriage between the petitioner and opposite party No.3 and the couple is living happily and that due to misunderstanding, he had lodged the F.I.R. This informant also reiterated the contents of the affidavit by appearing in Court in person. When there has been valid marriage between the petitioner and opposite party No.3 and when the informant has himself admit¬ted that due to some misunderstanding, the F.I.R. has been filed, there is hardly any chance of the case ending in conviction. So, continuance of the case will be a total abuse of the process of the Court. Moreover, it is to be borne in mind that continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will cause a dent in blissful married life of the petitioner and opposite party No.3. In such situation, ends of justice will be met by quashing the impugned cognizance passed in the aforesaid G.R. case. Moreover, it is to be borne in mind that continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will cause a dent in blissful married life of the petitioner and opposite party No.3. In such situation, ends of justice will be met by quashing the impugned cognizance passed in the aforesaid G.R. case. Accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance and the proceeding in G.R. Case No.39 of 2003 pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Champua is quashed. CRLMC is allowed. CRLMC allowed.