Manasi Nayak and Another vs State of Orissa

A.K. Parichha, J.—Though the matter has been listed for admission, on the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

Hear learned Counsel for the parties and the Petitioners, who are personally present in Court.

Petitioner No. 2 is the accused in G.R. Case No. 95 of 2001 of the Court of learned SDJM, Khurda for the offence under Sections 363, 366-A, IPC. It is alleged in the case that the Petitioner No. 2 kidnapped Petitioner No. 1 who was a minor girl and compelled her to marry. The Petitioners have filed the present application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R. and the proceeding of the above noted case on the plea that the allegations are false and that they married each other out of their free will and are now leading a happy conjugal life.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are now living as husband and wife at Calcutta and have been blessed with a child, who is now 2 years old. He submits that the continuance of the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 95 of 2001 in the Court of learned SDJM, Khurda is causing unnecessary tension to the Petitioners and there is chance of misunderstanding between them and so for the happiness in the families of the Petitioners and for greater social cause the proceeding of the above noted G.R. case should be quashed.

Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the offence alleged are not compoundable in nature and Section 320, Code of Criminal Procedure operates as bar to compound the aforesaid offences. He however, submits that he has received a report from the concerned S.P. to the effect that the Petitioners are actually living as husband and wife at Calcutta and have been blessed with a child. He submits that though technically the offences under Sections 363 and 366-A, IPC have been made out, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 95 of 2001 as the victim girl and the accused are now leading a happy conjugal life.

It has already been said by the apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (2003) 25 OCR (SC) 99 that Section 320, Code of Criminal Procedure cannot operate as bar to exercise inherent power to quash the criminal proceeding u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure , if continuance of such criminal proceeding will be abuse of process of the Court and if such order of quashing can bring happiness and amity in the lives of the parties. In the present case the victim girl and the accused themselves say that they are leading a happy conjugal life. The prosecution also reports that the Petitioners are living as husband and wife and have been blessed with a child. In such situation, even if the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 95 of 2001 of the Court of learned SDJM, Khurda is continued, chance of conviction of Petitioner No. 2 is blead and, therefore, the proceeding will be simply abuse of the process of the Court. On the other hand, if the proceeding is quashed, the tension in the married lives of the Petitioners can be erased and they can live happily. Therefore, for the larger social cause and to save the abuse of process of the Court, I feel it prudent to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 95 of 2001.

In the result, the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 95 of 2001 pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Khurda is quashed and CRLMC is accordingly allowed.

UCC be granted on proper application.