Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 863 (ORI)

Sanatana Naik v. State of Orissa

2010-12-22

I.MAHANTY

body2010
JUDGMENT I. MAHANTY, J. — The present application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.1 of 2010 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Soroda, corresponding to Badagada P.S. Case No.1 of 2010 pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged by the informant (father of petitioner No.2 and opposite party No.2 in the present petition). 2.This Court vide order dated 19.11.2010 directed the Registry to ascertain as to whether any counsel has entered appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 for which appearance date had been fixed to 3.9.2010. Even though the office note dated 8.9.2010 indicates relating to the sufficiency of service of notice since the A.D. of such registered notice had been received back by the Registry, pursuant to the aforesaid direction, office note dated 24.11.2010 indicates that no counsel has entered appearance for the informant-Opposite Party No.2. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the statement of the alleged victim (Petitioner No.2) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has categorically stated that she had in love with petitioner No.1-Sanatana Naik and had eloped with him to Kerala where they got married. She further stated that she had eloped with the accused-petitioner No.1 on her own will and the accused had never kidnapped nor had forcefully cohabited with her. 4.Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the order dated 21.4.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Soroda in Misc. Case No.1 of 2010 (G.R. Case No.1 of 2010) whereby the learned J.M.F.C. had been pleased to direct release of petitioner No.2 to the custody of her mother-in-law, i.e. the mother of petitioner No.1. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fazle Gaffar Khan and others v. State of W.B. and another, (2000) 1 SCC (Crl.) 686 and the same has been relied on by this Court in the case of Gouri Sankar Nayak and others v. State of Orissa and another, (2004) 29 OCR-585. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fazle Gaffar Khan (supra) held which is 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fazle Gaffar Khan (supra) held which is 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 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.” 6.Considering the facts as noted hereinabove and the statement of the alleged victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the interest of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and interest of their marital life, I am of the considered view that no real purpose would be served in allowing such criminal proceeding to continue any further. 7.Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.1 of 2010 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Soroda, corresponding to Badagada P.S. Case No.1 of 2010 is directed to be quashed. The bail bonds and sureties, if any, be released in favour of all the accused persons. 8.The CRLMC is allowed. CRLMC allowed.