Orissa High Court
Bijaya Bishi vs State Of Odisha & .... Opp. Parties on 2 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.6151 of 2014
Bijaya Bishi .... Petitioner
Mr. Amit Prasad Bose,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & .... Opp. Parties
Others Mr. Bibekananda
Nayak, AGA,
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 02.04.2025
14.
1.
Heard.
2. At the instance of the Opposite Party No.2-
Informant-Surya Kumar Sahoo, the F.I.R. in connection
with Dungripali P.S. Case No.30 of 2013 corresponding
to Special G.R. Case No.06 of 2020 came to be
registered against the petitioner for the alleged
commission of offences punishable under Section-
363/366 of the IPC, now pending in the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Sonepur.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the
opposite party No.2 reported the case at Dungripali P.S.
alleging that, on 20/21.03.2013 at about 1.30 am,
while the Opposite Party No.2 wake up for toilet, he did
not find his daughter in her bed where she was
sleeping. It is further alleged that after such incident,
he informed her wife about the missing of his daughter.
They both went for search of her missing daughter and
could not able to trace her. So, they suspect the
petitioner might have kidnapped their minor daughter.
Hence, the F.I.R.
4. Investigation of the case is completed and the final
form under Section-173 of the Cr.P.C. has not yet been
filed, but at this stage, the petitioner and the Opposite
party Nos. 2 and 3 have entered into settlement.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the petitioner is aged about 23 years old whereas the
opposite party No.3 is 19 years of old. The petitioner
has married to opposite party no.3 and blessed with a
girl child, and she was born on 01.12.2014.
6. The petitioner, victim and the father of the victim
along with the child are present in VC today
represented by their counsels. They have also filed the
photocopies of their self-attested Aadhaar Cards to
establish their identity, which are taken on record.
7. The parties have settled their dispute and the
opposite party No.2-Informant, filed an affidavit dated
03.01.2020, inter alia, stating as under:-
"1. That, the petitioner has filed the
abovementioned case with a prayer to
quash the proceeding vide G.R. Case
No.45 of 2013 pending in the court of
learned J.M.F.C, S.Rampur.
2. That, I am the informant to the case
i.e. Dungripali P.S. Case No. 30/13.
3. That, it is stated here that the matter
has been amicably compromised between
the parties and my daughter and the
present petitioner have already married
each other and leading a happy conjugal
life.
4. That, for the better interest of my
daughter and her family I do not want to
proceed further in this case and 1 have
also no objection if the proceeding against
the petitioner is quashed on the ground of
compromise".
8. The opposite party No.3-victim has also filed an
affidavit dated 13.01.2020 inter alia stating as under:-
"1. That, the petitioner has filed the
abovementioned case with a prayer to
quash the proceeding vide G.R. Case
No.45 of 2013 pending in the court of
learned J.M.F.C, S.Rampur.
2. That, I am the daughter of the
Informant to the case i.e. Dungripali P.S.
Case No. 30/13.
3. That, it is stated here that the matter
has been amicably compromised between
the parties and myself and the present
petitioner have already married each
other and leading a happy conjugal life.
4. That, for the better interest of my
daughter and her family I do not want to
proceed further in this case and 1 have
also no objection if the proceeding against
the petitioner is quashed on the ground of
compromise".
9. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Counsel for the Petitioner
relying upon the judgment of this Court in Fayazuddin
Khan @ Badal Khan v. State of Odisha & Ors.
reported in 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 43 and Rojalin Rout
& another Vrs. State of Odisha and another
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1339, submits that
the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered
by the aforementioned judgments. The facts of the
present case resembles with case cited before this
Court by Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Counsel.
10. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1-State
submits that the dispute between the parties have been
settled and the victim and the accused have already
married and bless with a daughter, therefore, to save
the family this court may grant indulgence in this
matter as there is no legal impediment in quashing the
F.I.R.
11. Regard being had to the submissions made above,
and the petitioner has already married to the opposite
party no.3 and blessed with a girl child. Both the
petitioner and the opposite party no.3 are young and so
as to save their marital life, which has been accepted by
the families of the petitioner and opposite parties, I am
inclined to allow the present petition. In the fact
scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioners
to the rigors of trial at this stage would be a futile
exercise. The present case is squarely covered by the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported
in 2012 (10) SCC 303; B.S. Joshi & others v. State
of Haryana & another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675
and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & another v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others,
reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition
deserves merit.
12. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions made
at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Dungripali P.S.
Case No.30 of 2013 corresponding to Special G.R. Case
No.06 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sonepur
and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom
qua the petitioner are quashed.
13. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Narayan
Designation: Personal Assistant
