Orissa High Court
Trinath Sakia vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 27 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1079 of 2025
Trinath Sakia .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. J. K. Khuntia, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Party(s)
Ms. S. Moharana, ASC
Mr. H. S. Deo, Advocate for O.P.2
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 27.03.2025
02. 1. Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. dated
11.11.2024 in Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No.197 of 2024 came to be
registered against the petitioner for the alleged commission of the
offences under Sections 376(2)(n)/376(3)/313/323 of I.P.C. read
with Sections 4(2)/6 of the POCSO Act. On the ground of
settlement, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the F.I.R and
consequential proceedings.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that prior to seven years
back, the petitioner had proposed & promised the
complainant/victim to marry and kept physical relationship with
her. On the pretext of marriage, the petitioner had kept physical
relationship with her several time, the complaint got pregnant. It is
alleged that the petitioner gave some medicines for termination of
her pregnancy but ultimately planned to marry another lady. Hence,
this case.
4. The parties have settled the dispute before the trial of the
case began. The petitioner has married the victim/opposite party
No.2 on 27.01.2025. They have also filed a settlement deed which
is annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition. On the basis of the terms
of settlement, the petitioner has approached this by filing the
present petition seeking quashing of the entire criminal prosecution
initiated against him by the opposite party No.2.
5. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 are present in
the Court and being represented and identified by their counsels.
They have also filed self-attested copy of their Aadhaar Cards to
establish their identity, which are taken on record.
6. The opposite party No.2 has filed an affidavit dated
27.03.2025 inter alia stating as under:-
"1. That the petitioner has filed this application
praying inter-alia therein for quashing of proceeding
against the petitioner in Jeypore Mahila PS Case
No.197 of 2024 corresponding to GR Case No.1284
of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Session
Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Jeypore for the
alleged offences u/s. 376(2)(n)/376(3)/313/323 of IPC
r/w section 4(2)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. That, the complainant has lodged FIR against the
petitioner which has been registered as Jeypore
Mahila PS Case No.197 of 2024 corresponding to GR
Case No.1284 of 2024 pending in the Court of the
learned Addl. Session Judge-Cum-Special Judge
(POCSO), Jeypore for the offence punishable u/s
376(2)(n)/376(3)/313/323 of IPC r/w section 4(20/6 of
POCSO Act, 2012.
3. That, we have settled our dispute outside the court
in presence of local gentlemen and relatives and we
have made an agreement of marriage on 27.01.2025,
the petitioner and complainant are maintaining happy
conjugal life as husband and wife. The petitioner and
complainant are living happily. As per settlement the
complainant/informant does not want to continue the
proceeding in the court Learned Addl. Session Judge-
cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Jeypore, further since
we have already married each other and leading a
happy conjugal life from the date of marriage.
4. That, we have settled the dispute outside the court
and in view of such settlement and after marriage, the
complainant will not proceed further against the
petitioner and she will not depose evidence against
the petitioner. She is leading very happy life with her
husband."
7. On query from the Court, the opposite party No.2, who is
present in Court submits she has already married with the petitioner
No.1 and leading a happy conjugal life. To save her marital life, she
has entered into a settlement with the petitioners. Therefore, she
does not want to prosecute the matter with the petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the
terms of settlement, joint affidavit and Rajinama submits that the
case of the petitioner is directly covered by the judgment of this
Court in Rojalin Rout and another vrs. State of Odisha and
another in CRLMC No.3460 of 2023 and batch and the recent
judgment of this Court in the case of Fayazuddin Khan @ Badal
Khan vrs. State of Odisha and others in CRLMC No.3850 of 2024.
9. Ms. Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
the State submits that the petitioner is 25 years of old and the
victim/opposite party No.2 is now 23 of age and both of them have
already married and leading a happy marital life. To that effect,
they have also filed a joint affidavit. To save the marital life of the
opposite party No.2, this Court may give indulgence in the present
matter as there is no legal impediment.
10. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have settled
their dispute and the judgment of this Court in the case of the
Rojalin Rout and another vrs. State of Odisha and another in
CRLMC No.3460 of 2023 and batch and recent judgment in the
case of Fayazuddin Khan @ Badal Khan vrs. State of Odisha and
others in CRLMC No.3850 of 2024 and keeping in view the
judgment of this Court 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, I am of the considered view that
subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of the trial would be a futile
exercise. Therefore, the petition deserves merit.
11. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with
Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No.197 of 2024 corresponding to G.R.
Case No.1284 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Jeypore
and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the
petitioner are quashed.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 28-Mar-2025 14:01:34
