Orissa High Court
Manoj Das @ Manoj Kumar Das vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 9 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 2416 of 2024
Manoj Das @ Manoj Kumar Das .... Petitioner(s)
and another
Mr. B.S. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. S.N. Biswal, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 08.04.2025
09. 1. Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the
F.I.R. in Basudevpur P.S. Case No. 49 dated
27.02.2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 91 of 2020
pending in the court of the learned JMFC, Basudevpur
for the alleged commission of the offences punishable
under Section 363 of the IPC came to be registered by
opposite party no.2, who is the uncle of petitioner no.2
(the victim) against the petitioner no 1.Petitioner No 2
is the victim girl.
3. Ranjan Kumar Biswal (uncle of the victim girl)
had lodged the First Information Report on 27.02.2020
in Basudevpur Police Station alleging therein that his
niece namely Puspashree Mallik @ Das (petitioner no.2),
aged about 15 years, who was staying with him and
studying in Class IX suddenly found missing on
25.02.2020. When she did not return home after closure
of the school, which set the informant to enquire and
they suspected the present petitioner no.1 to have been
eloped with the victim. It is alleged by opposite party
no.2 that while the petitioner no.2 was in his custody
and pursuing studies, petitioner no.1 has kidnapped
her, which led to registration of the present FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
it is a case of elopement. Petitioner no.1 and petitioner
no.2 fled away and got married on 14.10.2022. Now
they are blessed with a child. To establish their
marriage, they have filed a certificate issued by Loknath
Mandir management, Bhadrak and also file affidavit to
that effect. The birth certificate of the child issued by the
Greater Chennai Corporation has also been filed by the
petitioners. In the birth certificate of the child the name
of both the petitioners are reflected as parents. On the
basis of the aforementioned documents, the counsel for
the petitioners submits that petitioners were in
relationship for a long time and they eloped and got
married. They have been blessed with one child.
Therefore, the criminal proceeding initiated by opposite
party no.2 may be quashed to save their happy marital
life.
5. On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 16.01.2025
this Court exempted the personal appearance of the
petitioners no.1 and 2. The opposite party no.2 is
present in Court. He is being represented by his counsel
and identified by him. The petitioners and opposite party
no.2 have also filed the photocopies of their self-attested
Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are
taken on record.
6. Opposite party no.2, who is the uncle of the
victim has also filed an affidavit dated 04.02.2025 inter
alia stating as under:-
"2. That the Petitioner no. 2 (victim) is my niece and
at the time of incident she was staying in my home
and prosecuting her studies.
3. That on dtd. 25.2.2020 she eloped with the
Petitioner no. 1 (accused) from the School. When she
did not return to home, I lodged the F.I.R. in
Basudevpur Police Station.
4. That the aforesaid F.I.R. bearing Basudevpur P.S.
Case No. 49/2020 dtd. 27.2.2020 and the
corresponding G.R. Case No. 91/2020 which is
pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.,
Basudevpur.
5. That I came to know later, that my niece-victim
(Petitioner no. 2) got married to the Petitioner no. 1
(accused) and blessed with a son on dtd.
15.12.2020 and they are staying happily as
husband and wife with the knowledge of one and
all.
6. That in such back drop of facts and
circumstances, keeping in view the harmony in the
family, I have no objection in the quashment of the
prosecution in connection with Basudevpur P.S.
Case No. 49/2020 dtd. 27.2.2020 and the
corresponding G.R. Case No. 91/2020 which is
pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.,
Basudevpur."
During investigation, the statement of the victim was
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. reads thus:-
"That on 25.02.2020 without informing anyone I
went to Balasore to a relative's house. Thereafter,
an FIR was filed my maternal uncle at the police
station. In furtherance, the police caught me and
brought me yesterday. As I married now, I wish to
reside at my in-laws house at Padmapur and except
this there is no other reason."
7. The counsel for the petitioners and the
informant-opposite party no.2 conjointly pray for
quashment of the entire proceeding on the ground of
settlement and the developments unfolded meanwhile.
8. Mr. S.N. Biswal, learned counsel for the State
has produced the case diary in Court today. I have
perused the case diary and the documents filed by the
parties. It appears from the record that investigation in
the present case is still going on and in the meantime
the parties have settled their dispute.
9. In view of the fact that petitioner no.1 and 2
have married in the meantime and they have been
blessed with a child and the parties have settled their
dispute and filed affidavit before this Court, the case in
hand is distinguishable from the facts of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramji Lal
Bairwa and Anr. vrs. State of Rajasthan and
others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193. Rather, the facts
of the present case is akin to the facts of the judgment
of this Court in the case of Rojalin Rout & another
vrs. State of Odisha and another, 2024 SCC OnLine
(Ori.) 1339 and Fayazuddin Khan @ Badal Khan v.
State of Odisha and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori.) 43.
10. Taking into consideration the conspectus the
entire facts and the judgments cited at the bar and
keeping in view the developments unfolded meanwhile
and the fact that the parties have settled their dispute,
I am of the considered view that the case of the
petitioners is covered by the judgment of this Court in
the cases of Rojalin Rout & another vrs. State of
Odisha and another, 2024 SCC OnLine (Ori.) 1339
and Fayazuddin Khan @ Badal Khan v. State of
Odisha and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori.) 43. Further,
continuation of the present proceeding will not enure to
the benefit to either parties and, therefore, in these
circumstances subjecting the petitioners to rigors of the
trial is destined to be futile exercise. Therefore, the
case of the petitioners is directly covered by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another
reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi &
others vs. State of Haryana & another reported in
(2003) 4 SCC 675.
11. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in
connection with Basudevpur P.S. Case No. 49 dated
27.02.2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 91 of 2020,
pending in the court of the learned JMFC, Basudevpur
is quashed.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Location: High Court of Orissa
