Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 437 (ORI)

Jayanti Pradhan v. State of Orissa

2010-06-29

B.K.NAYAK

body2010
ORDER 29.06.2010 — Heard learned counsel for all the parties. Perused the record. 2. In this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioners challenge the continuance of the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.283 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai and pray for quashing the order of cogni¬zance and the said proceeding. 3. In the aforesaid G.R. Case the petitioners are facing prosecution for alleged commission of offences under Sections 341/323/343/365/417/379/506/34 of the I.P.C., for which the learned J.M.F.C. has taken cognizance. The said case was initiat¬ed on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the present opposite party No.2 alleging inter alia that petitioner No.4, with the promise of marriage, had kept physical relationship with her. He was also trying to disturb other marriage proposals of the in¬formant. On 12.07.2005, the marriage of the informant was settled at Dandisahi, but on the same day petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are the parents of petitioner No.4, took the informant to their house giving assurance that they would perform her marriage with peti¬tioner No.4 and on such assurance she went to the house of the petitioners with her ornaments and cash of Rs.39,000/-. On her-arrival in the house of the petitioners, the informant was of¬fered “sarbat” and after taking the same she became unconscious. Whenever she regained consciousness, she was offered that drink again and again. It is also alleged that she was kept tied. On 15.07.2005 in the night, on regaining consciousness and having found that she had been untied, she escaped and came back to her parent’s house. On investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they have been entangled in the case falsely by the informant and in the meantime the informant has married elsewhere and she admits that due to some family and property dispute and under ill advice of some persons, she had lodged the F.I.R., and in the meantime the dispute has been mutually resolved and she is not willing to proceed further with the prosecution of the petitioners. 5. 5. Opposite party No.2., the informant appeared in this case and filed an affidavit to the effect that due to some dis¬pute between the two families she had lodged F.I.R. against the petitioners on the ill advice of some persons and that the dis¬pute has in the meantime been resolved and she has married to one Hemanta Ku. Mohanta and in the event of continuance of the crimi¬nal proceeding against the petitioners her marital life and social reputation would be adversely affected. It is further stated in the affidavit that she does not want to proceed with the prosecution. In view of such affidavit, this Court by order dated 18.1.2010 directed opposite party No.2 to appear before the learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai for recording of her statement and to send the statement for perusal of this Court. Accordingly, opposite party No.2 appeared before the learned J.M.F.C., Patta¬mundai on 03.02.2010 and her statement was recorded by the learned J.M.F.C. under Section 164, Cr.P.C. which has been re¬ceived in this Court and forms part of record. The said statement fully supports the stand taken by opposite party No.2 in her affidavit filed in this Court to the effect that the dispute has been amicably settled and opposite party No.2 has already gone on marriage to another village and, therefore, she does not intend to proceed further with the prosecution of the petitioners. 6. It is well settled that in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the High Court is empowered to quash the proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that the interest of justice so requires. Referring to its earlier decision in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre; 1988 (1) SCC 692 , the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (II) OLR (SC) 101 held that where the opinion of the Court is that the chance of conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the Criminal prosecution to continue the Court may while taking into consideration, the special facts of a case, quash the proceeding. Following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, this Court in the case of Tasoraj Mahamad and others v. State of Orissa and another; 2004 (II) OLR 642 , quashed the cognizance as the parties have sorted out their difference and the informant herself requested for quashing of the cognizance taken against the accused-peti¬tioner holding that the continuance of the criminal proceedings will benefit none. The case of B.S. Joshi (supra) has also been relied upon in the case of Pragyandipta Panda and others v. State of Orissa and another; (2005) 31 OCR 45 and proceeding was quashed on similar grounds. 7. In view of the statement and the affidavit of the informant (opposite party No.2), there is little chance of con¬viction of the petitioners in the G.R. Case. No useful purpose will be served, if the trial proceeds, which would be nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. It would not be in the interest of justice to allow the G.R. Case to proceed further. Therefore, this criminal misc. case is allowed and G.R. Case No.283 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai against the petitioners is quashed. This order be communicated to the learned trial Court. Cri.Misc. Case allowed.