The Orissa High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in respect to Section 376(2)(n) and observed that jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not fettered with any restriction and the power may be invoked to meet extraordinary situations and considering that parties I the present case had already married each other, continuing the proceedings will cause hardship immense inconvenience to the parties.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the criminal proceedings against him concerning offences under Section 376(2)(n), 328 IPC and Sections 66-E and 67-A IT Act 2000.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the offence of rape was not prima facie made out in the present case considering the consensual relationship between the parties and the marriage of the victim with the petitioner. The counsel referred to the judgement in Ramawatar vs. State of MP and Ananda D.V. vs. State and Anr. to contend that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is required to be exercised in the best interest of the parties notwithstanding the commencement of trial for the reason that after settlement of the dispute, the petitioner and victim married and happily leading their conjugal life at present. It was further argued that there is no bar or any kind of restriction in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at any stage of the criminal proceeding and even during the pendency of the appeal if it is needed to do complete justice to the parties involved.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing for the state contended that the allegations against the petitioner included rape and were serious in nature and the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed considering that the offences were non-compoundable in nature and the present case was not a fit case where inherent jurisdiction should be exercised and it would have an adverse influence at the society at large if it it is allowed. The counsel further relied on the judgment in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat where it was held that heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences, such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or her family has settled the dispute since such offences are not private in nature but have a serious impact upon the society the decision to continue with the trial in cases of such nature is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons of serious offences to argue that even if the parties have married in the meantime by itself cannot be a ground to quash the prosecution.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not fettered with any restriction and the power may be invoked to meet extraordinary situations. It was further stated that even if an offence is non-compoundable, the same shall not stand as a bar for the court from exercising the jurisdiction if it is required to meet the ends of justice. It was further stated that expressing the inability to exercise power merely for the reason that a serious offence is involved is not a pragmatic approach and special circumstances demand the exercise of inherent power to deliver justice to the parties even where any offence is serious and non-compoundable in nature.
The court observed that in the present case, the parties had already married after settling their differences, so there is no reason why the inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised and continuing the proceedings against the petitioner would result in immense inconvenience and hardship to the parties. The court further stated that it is not to invoke such jurisdiction in cases involving offences of grievous nature since it would impact the society but in befitting cases where its exercise is needed to do complete justice, compromise and settlement of dispute resulting in marriage between the parties even involved in a strained relationship may be a justifiable ground to bring an end to the prosecution and terminated.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner by exercising its inherent jurisdiction.
Case Title: Jayanta Kumar Dash @ Litu vs. State of Orissa and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice R.K. Pattanaik
Case No.: CRLMC No. 1947 of 2021
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Devashis Panda and Mr. S. Panda
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Mohapatra and Mr. J.P. Behera
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
