Orissa High Court
Runa Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Another on 1 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC NO.4138 of 2022
(In the matter of application under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.).
Runa Nayak ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and another ... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Agarwal, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.R. Roul, ASC
[O.P. No.1]
Ms. R. Rajgharia,
Advocate [O.P. No.2]
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
01.09.2023
Order No.
02.
1. The petitioner by way of this application
U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. albeit seeks to quash the order
passed on 11.02.2022 by learned J.M.F.C., Mohana
in G.R. Case No.223 of 2021 taking cognizance of
offences, but today the petitioner and OP No.2-cum-
informant appear before this Court and prays to
quash the aforesaid criminal case against the
petitioner by filing a joint affidavit stating therein
about amicable settlement between them. It is
stated in the aforesaid affidavit, that the parties
have already married on 22.09.2021 under Christian
Marriage Act, 1872 and living as husband and wife
happily and now they are blessed with a girl child on
20.07.2023, but it is also clarified that OP No.2 had
lodged the FIR on the pressure of her parents.
2. Heard. Learned counsel for both the parties
produced the original Aadhar card of petitioner and
OP No.2 along with certificate of Christian Marriage
Registration and while taking back these documents,
learned counsels for the parties files its photocopies
by duly identifying the same. The petitioner being
identified by his counsel Mr.R.Agarwal(Enrolment
No. O-895/1999) so also OP NO.2 being identified by
her counsel Ms. R. Rajgharia(Enrolment No. O-
1521/2007) are personally present before this Court
with their baby girl and they confirmed to have been
staying as husband and wife by lawfully marrying
each other with their baby girl. OP No.2 specifically
states before the Court that she does not want to
proceed against her husband in the criminal case as
they are living peacefully. The oral statement of the
parties about solemnization of their marriage is
stood fortified by the marriage certificate produced
by them.
3. A perusal of the impugned order would go to
disclose that the learned J.M.F.C. Mohana had taken
cognizance of offence U/Ss. 354(D)(1)(i), 363,
366,342 & 506 of the IPC, out of which 354(D)(1)(i),
363, 366 of IPC are not compoundable offences, but
the sensitivity and complexity involved in this case is
the undeniable sequitur of relationship between the
parties as husband and wife and now they are
blessed with a girl child. Besides, the offence U/S.
363 of IPC does not stand attracted against the
petitioner on account of the age of the victim to be
20 years as stated in the FIR, but throwing the
petitioner to the rigmarole of trial for kidnapping and
stalking of his wife would definitely not in favour of
the family of petitioner and OP No.2.
4. In the aforesaid developments of situation in
which the relationship of petitioner and OP No.2 had
already crystallized into marriage between them
with procreation of child, who is right now an infant.
What would be the consequence of the criminal trial
of the husband on the accusation of kidnapping and
stalking of his own wife, more particularly when the
informant has become wife and their marriage has
been consummated by birth of a child. In the
aforesaid situation, it is not oblivious to any one and
can be said with certainty that the ultimate chances
of conviction of such husband(petitioner) would not
only be bleak but also is impossible and the criminal
proceeding against him in the above premises is
nothing, but an abuse of process of Court. In Satish
Mehera Vrs. Delhi Administration and another;
1996 SCC (Cri) 1104, the Apex Court has held in
Paragraph-15 as follows:-
"But when the judgment is fairly
certain that there is no prospect of the
case ending in conviction, the valuable
time of the Court should not be wasted
for holding a trial only for the purpose
of formally completing the procedure
to pronounce the conclusion on a
future date. We are mindful that most
of the Sessions Courts in India are
under having pressure of workload."
Similarly, in Madhavrao Jiwajiraoscindia
and others Vrs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao
Angre and others; (1988) 1 SCC 692, the Apex
Court has been pleased to hold in Paragraph-7 that
where in the opinion of the Court chances of an
ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore, no
useful purpose is likely to be solved by allowing a
criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may
while taking into consideration the special facts of a
case can also quash the proceeding even though it
may be at preliminary stage.
5. In view of the above analysis of facts and
situation on the principles of law laid down by Apex
Court in the decisions referred to above together
with the grounds in which a criminal proceeding can
be quashed U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C., it clearly appears to
the Court that the criminal proceeding against the
petitioner is nothing but unnecessary harassment to
the parties and the trial thereon would be a futile
exercise of powers and further continuation of the
criminal proceeding against the petitioner would
amount to an abuse of process of Court and, thus, to
secure the ends of justice, such criminal proceeding
is required to be quashed and accordingly, the
criminal proceeding as a whole against the petitioner
in G.R. Case No.223 of 2021 pending in the file of
learned J.M.F.C., Mohana is hereby quashed.
Resultantly, the CRLMC is allowed to the
extent indicated above on contest but in the
circumstance, there is no order as to costs.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Subhasmita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS
Designation: Jr.Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 02-Sep-2023 11:49:09
