Orissa High Court
Sujit Naik @ Suryakanta Naik vs State Of Odisha on 13 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 830 of 2023
Sujit Naik @ Suryakanta Naik ..... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, Adv.
Vs.
1. State of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2. Sanyasi Naik Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, A.S.C.
(for O.P. No.1)
CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
13.09.2023
Order No. (Through hybrid mode)
06.
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceeding in
C.T.(Special) Case No. 34 of 2019 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court under POCSO Act,
Dhenkanal arising out of Tumusingha P.S. Case No. 56 of 2019
where charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for
commission of offense punishable under Sections 363, 366 of IPC
read with Section 12 of POCSO Act.
3. Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 have married each
other and are staying together and leading a happy conjugal life
and the certificate of marriage has been filed under Annexure-A
and affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.2 Sanyasi Naik
who is the father of the victim girl annexing a copy of the
marriage certificate dated 24.04.2023. The victim has also filed an
affidavit stating that they have got married before the Marriage
Officer and both are living happily and both of them have
submitted that they do not want to proceed with the case for which
the case may be quashed.
4. Perusal of the order sheet indicates that when the matter be
listed before the Lok Adalat on 13.05.2023, the petitioner, the
opposite party no.2 and the victim were present in Court and the
victim has stated that she is staying with the accused his is legally
married wife and leading a happy conjugal life and the informant
has stated that he does not want to proceed with the case. As the
offence is not compoundable, the matter had been directed to be
listed before the Regular Bench.
5. Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel
for the State submits that pursuant to the direction in the impugned
order, the police has conducted further investigation and submitted
chargesheet against the petitoner for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 363/366 of IPC and Section 12 of the
POCSO Act. As the victim was a minor at the time of offence and
one of the offence is under the POCSO Act, the proceedings
should not be quashed as it will send a wrong signal to the society.
6. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel relies the decision of the High
Court of Rajasthan in the case of Tarun Vaishnav vs. State of
Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 6323 of 2022
(decided on 13.10.2022), where under similar circumstances the
Rajasthan High Court has quashed the proceeding under Sections
363, 366 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. He has
also produced the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State of Rajasthan vs. Tarun Vaishnav and another in Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1890 of 2023, where the appeal by the
State of Rajasthan challenging the order passed dated 13.10.2022
has been dismissed.
7. Mr.S.S.Mohapatra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel is
directed to submit the case diary for perusal of the Court.
8. Hearing is concluded.
Sukanta
9. Judgment is reserved.
..............................
(SAVITRI RATHO)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 18-Sep-2023 19:16:10
