Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 471 (ORI)

HEMANTA KUMAR ROUT v. STATE OF ORISSA

2007-06-21

I.MAHANTY

body2007
JUDGMENT : I. Mahanty, J. - This application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 9 of 2005 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Pattamundai. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Khiroda Kumar Samal-O.P. No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. on 12.1.2005 alleging therein that the Petitioner had kidnapped his minor daughter and in pursuance thereto, G.R. Case No. 9 of 2005 has been registered in the Court of J.M.F.C., Pattamundai. 3. Mr. Sangam Kumar Sahoo, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegation contained in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated. According to him Arnapurna Rout ' Samal ' Liva (O.P. No. 3) was major and not a minor, as alleged and since she was in love with the Petitioner, both of them decided to marry each other and accordingly, Opposite Party No. 3 left her lawful guardian and got married with the Petitioner on 25.1.2005 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and since then the Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 3 are living as husband and wife. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 3 are leading happy and peaceful marital life and have been blessed with a daughter. To establish the said fact, the Petitioner has annexed the affidavit of O.P. No. 3 as Annexure3 to this application as well as Notarial Certificate under Annexure-4 affirming their marriage. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is well settled by series of Judgments of the Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court that if no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to continue, the Court ought to exercise its authority u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. to quash the proceeding. 5. Sri Debi Prasad Pattnaik and associates have entered appearance for Opposite Parties 2 and 3 and supporting the case of the Petitioner affirming the fact that the Opposite Parties 2 and 3 have signed the affidavits under Annexures-2 and 3 to the application and also submits that no useful purpose would be served in continuation of the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner since the Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 3 are leading a peaceful and happy married life having been blessed with a daughter. 6. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the Judgments of the Apex Court in the case of (2000) 10 SCC 10 in the case of Fazle Gaffar Khan and Ors. v. State of W.B. and Anr., is as follows: The Appellant faces criminal proceedings on a charge u/s 366 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he kidnapped a minor girl. On the basis of the first information report (FIR) the police took up the investigation and submitted a final form. A protest petition being filed by the complainant, the Magistrate treated it as a complaint and took cognizance. The accused moved the High Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. for quashing of the proceedings. The High Court having refused to quash the proceedings, the present appeal has been filed in this Court. An affidavit of the girl has been filed clearly stating therein that she was married to the Appellant-accused. In view of such affidavit, the Court had issued notice pursuant to which the State entered appearance, but the complainant did not make any appearance. In the light of the said affidavit of the girl admitting the marriage between her and the present Appellant and the statement made by Ms. Indira Jaising, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant that a child has been born, we think it in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings. We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct that the criminal proceedings be quashed. 7. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been followed by this Court in the case of Susila Mallick v. State of Orissa, (2006) 34 O.C.R. 9 and in the case of Ashwini Kumar Behera v. State of Orissa (2007) 36 OCR 373. 8. Considering the aforesaid submissions advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties 2 and 3 and the Judgments referred hereinabove as well as the principles of laws enunciated therein, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuation of G.R. Case No. 9 of 2005 pending before the Court of J.M.F.C., Pattamundai and hence the said proceeding is quashed. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed. CRLMC allowed