[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Arjun Kumar Penthoi vs State Of Odisha And Another ..... ... on 15 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3985 of 2024
Arjun Kumar Penthoi ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Pravat Kumar Nayak
-versus-
State Of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC
Priya Ranjan Mohanty
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
15.12.2025
Order No.
08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel appearing for the Informant and learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as
the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., the Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire criminal
proceeding in Pallahara P.S. Case No.11 of 2021 which
corresponds to Special (POCSO) Case No.08 of 2021 now pending
before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge
(POSCO), Angul. The above noted Pallahara P.S. Case was
registered on the allegation of commission of an offence punishable
under Sections 376(3)/376(2)(n) of IPC read with Section 4(2) and
Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the Petitioner and the victim were in a love relationship. He
further contended that in the meantime, the victim has given birth
to a female child. He further submitted that both the Petitioner and
the victim have married in the meantime. In support of such
contention, he also referred to the marriage registration certificate
issued by the competent authority dated 25.07.2024. On the basis of
the aforesaid subsequent development, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that both the Petitioner and the victim have
been staying together as husband and wife and leading a happy
conjugal life along with their child. On such ground, learned
counsel for the Petitioner contended that the further continuance of
the present criminal proceeding would only cause disruption in
their otherwise happy marital life. On such ground, learned counsel
for the Petitioner contended that the further continuance of the
criminal proceeding would not be in the interest of justice, and, as
such, the present criminal proceeding against the Petitioner be
quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the Informant on the other hand
supported the submission made by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the
Informant also referred to the joint affidavit filed by the Petitioner
and the Opposite Party No.2 before this Court which was sworn
before the Oath Commissioner of this Court. On perusal of the joint
affidavit it appears that the Opposite Party No.2-victim has already
married the Petitioner in the meantime and they have been blessed
with a daughter and such marriage has been solemnized on
25.07.2024. It has also been stated the affidavit that due to a
misunderstanding between the families, the FIR was lodged at the
instance of the Informant. He further contended that the Opposite
Party No.2-Informant does not want to proceed further in this case
and that the Petitioner and the victim are staying together as
husband and wife and leading a happy conjugal life. On such
ground, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant
stated before this Court that he will have no objection in the event,
the entire criminal proceeding is quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
the quashing of entire criminal proceeding on the ground of gravity
and seriousness of the allegation. He further contended that in the
meantime, the trial has progressed substantially, and almost 16
witnesses have been examined from the side of the prosecution. He
further contended that if the matter has indeed been amicably
settled, if that the Petitioner and the victim have married and are
presently staying together as husband and wife, then such facts
should be brought before the learned trial court and the learned trial
Court shall take such subsequent development into consideration
while delivering the final judgment. On such ground, learned
counsel for the State contended that it could not be fair and proper
to quash the entire criminal proceeding at this stage of the trial.
7. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful examination of the background fact, further
taking note of materials placed on record, this Court observes that
initially an FIR was lodged alleging commission of rape and an
offence under the POCSO Act. The statement of the victim which
was initially recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. also
supports the case of the prosecution. Further, the materials which
are on record reveal that the both the Parties have married in the
meantime on 25.07.2024. Moreover, the joint affidavit filed by the
Parties also confirmed the aforesaid fact that the Petitioner and
victim are married and their staying together as husband and wife
and that in the meantime they have been blessed with a female
child.
8. On a careful consideration of the submission made by the
learned counsels appearing for the Parties, further taking note of the
fact that the trial has advanced substantially, this Court disposes of
the present application by directing the learned trial court to
conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of three months from today. Further, it is directed that the
learned trial Court, while delivering in the final judgment, shall
take into consideration the subsequent development that has taken
place in the case. Further, it is open to the defence to bring on
record the subsequent developments (taken place in the case).
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC
application stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
