Orissa High Court
Pravati Mantri @ Susama vs State Of Odisha And Another .... Opp. ... on 26 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.882 of 2025
Pravati Mantri @ Susama .... Petitioner(s)
Pradhan
Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opp. Party(s)
Mr. S. J. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 26.03.2025
01. 1. Heard.
2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the entire criminal
prosecution initiated against her in G.R. Case No.117(A) of 2005
arising out of Fategarh P.S. Case No.80 of 2005 pending in the
Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Bhapur.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the
present case on 31.12.2005 for the alleged commission of offences
punishable under Section 366/363/109/212/34 of I.P.C. against the
present petitioner besides the principal accused namely Susanta
Sahoo @ Ramu @ Prasant Kumar Sahoo and the co-accused
Basudev Panigrahi @ Guna. In the charge-sheet, the petitioner was
shown as an absconder. Therefore, the trial was spilted up and the
principal accused namely Susanta Sahoo @ Ramu @ Prasant
Kumar Sahoo and the co-accused Basudev Panigrahi @ Guna faced
the trial. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.),
Nayagarh vide its judgment dated 24.03.2008 in S.T. Case
No.30/21 of 2007 acquitted both Susanta Sahoo @ Ramu @ Prasant
Kumar Sahoo and Basudev Panigrahi @ Guna. Relying upon the
judgment of the learned trial Court acquitting the co-accused
persons, the present petitioner is seeking quashing of the entire
criminal prosecution initiated against her.
4. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner has
highlighted the operating part of the judgment dated 24.03.2008
passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC),
Nayagarh, which reads as under:-
"On analyzing the evidence of the P.Ws. it is
found that at the time of occurrence, the
victim Snehalata was aged about 19 years and
due to love affair with accd. Ramu Sahoo she
had voluntarily went away with Ramu Sahoo
and after getting her married, she is living
with Ramu Sahoo and she has been blessed
with a daughter. She is also leading happy
conjugal life. Hence, there is nothing on
record to implicate the accd. person in the
alleged crime. So, prosecution has failed to
prove its case against the accd. persons
beyond every shadow of doubt."
5. From perusal of the judgment and the materials available
on record, it is evidently clear that the present petitioner is
implicated in the present case on the allegation that she has abated
the principal accused namely Susanta Sahoo @ Ramu @ Prasant
Kumar Sahoo for commission of the offence. However,
subsequently Susanta Sahoo @ Ramu @ Prasant Kumar Sahoo has
married with the victim and they are leading a happy conjugal life.
Taking cognizance of the said fact, the learned trial Court has not
only acquitted the principal accused namely Susanta Sahoo @
Ramu @ Prasant Kumar Sahoo but also acquitted the alleged co-
conspirator of kidnapping the victim. The petitioner being a lady,
subjecting her to the rigors of trial is bound to be a futile exercise in
the fact scenario of the case. Hence, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel
for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case 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 submits
that the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner may be
quashed.
6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State on the contrary submits that the judgment passed by the
learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Nayagarh
acquitting the two co-accused persons will not enure to the benefit
of the present petitioner because the evidences recorded by the
prosecution vis-à-vis the accused who faced the trial. He further
submits that the petitioner is an absconder since 2005. Therefore, no
leniency should be shown to the petitioner.
7. Taking into the Consideration the rival contentions of the
parties, I am of the view that since none of the prosecution
witnesses have supported the prosecution during the trial of the co-
accused persons and the fact that the principal accused namely
Susanta Sahoo @ Ramu @ Prasant Kumar Sahoo has already
married with the victim girl and settled their life, at the belated
stage, subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of trial is destined to be
a futile exercise. Hence, the petition deserves merit and succeeds.
8. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case
No.117(A) of 2005 arising out of Fategarh P.S. Case No.80 of 2005
pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Bhapur and the
consequential proceeding arising therefrom qua the petitioner are
quashed, subject to the petitioner paying cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
five thousand) to the victim.
9. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 28-Mar-2025 13:54:46
