Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 335 (ORI)

Pravat Kumar Pradhan v. State of Orissa and two

2010-05-06

I.MAHANTY

body2010
ORDER 6.5.2010 — Heard Mr. D.R. Sundaray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Narasingh, learned A.G.A. for the State. Although O.P.3 has entered appearance through her counsel, none appears on her behalf at the time of hearing. From the pleadings herein it appears that the F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Sabita Sen (O.P.3) on 18.5.2006 alleging that the petitioner Pravat Kumar Pradhan and others, namely, Babaji Samantaray @ Rabindra Kumar Samantray (petitioner in CRLMC No. 2168 of 2006) and Bijaya Pradhan came to the house of the informant and had taken away the daughter of the informant, i.e., O.P.2-Smt. Susmita Pradhan. Basing on the aforesaid allegation, Rourkela Sector 15 P.S. Case No. 62 (II) of 2006 was registered against the accused persons under Sections 363, 365/34, I.P.C. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-Pravat Kumar Pradhan and O.P.2-Smt. Susmita Pradhan (daughter of the informant) have already got married and leading a happy conjugal life. The statement of O.P.2 under Section 164, Cr.P.C. has been recorded to the following effect under Annexure-2, which reads thus:- “My name is Susmita Sen. My father’s name is Balaram Sen. Today I do hereby solemnly states that I have married Pravat Kumar Pradhan. Pravat Kumar Pradhan was residing in our house while serving. Thereafter as per the direction of my mother he was also tutoring me. Some days after, I fell in love with Pravat. After completion of my H.S.C. Examination, I and Pravat went to our village jungle and from there we went to Berhampur and reside there in a rented house. We got married in Lord Shiva Temple at Berhampur. There we were living as husband and wife. Thereafter I became pregnant. Thereafter my mother took me to my house and made my abortion. My mother used to torture me as well as threatened to kill me by giving poison. Thereafter I telephoned to Pravat and called him. Thereafter when Pravat came on 15.6.2006 both of us went away from mother’s house. Thereafter we resided at Angul and after consultation with the lawyer we obtained an order from the Hon’ble High Court after one month. When we came to the Court at Rourkela for our surrender before the Court on yesterday on the way the local Police as well as my family members took both of us away from the Court to Sector-15 Police Station. When we came to the Court at Rourkela for our surrender before the Court on yesterday on the way the local Police as well as my family members took both of us away from the Court to Sector-15 Police Station. Since I have already got married to Pravat, I want to live with him. I do not want to go back to my mother. If at all I shall be sent to my mother, then I shall commit suicide.” Mr. Sundaray, further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Court in the case of Fazle Gaffer Khan and others v. State of W.B. and another, (2000) 10 SCC 10 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “The accused moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 Jaisingh, 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.” In view of the aforesaid judgment and 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim and since the victim has already married the accused, no real purpose would be served in allowing such criminal proceeding to continue. Therefore, considering the above and in the interest of justice order of cognizance dated 29.7.2006 passed by the learned SDJM(P), Rourkela in G.R. Case No. 963 of 2006 corresponding to Rourkela Sector 15 P.S. Case No. 62(II) of 2006 is quashed as the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The CRLMC is allowed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. CRLMC allowed.