B.K.NAYAK, J.
CRLMC. NO.4115 OF 2009 (Decided on 29.06.2010).
JAYANTI PRADHAN & ORS. ................ Petitioners.
.Vrs.
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. ................. Opp.Parties.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (ACT NO.2 OF 1974) - SEC.482.
For Petitioner -Suryakanta Das
For Opp.Parties -T.Mishra
Heard learned counsel for all parties. Perused the record.
2. In this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioners challenge the continuance of the
criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.283 of 2005 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C.,
Pattamundai and pray for quashing the order of cognizance and the said proceeding.
3. In the aforesaid G.R. Case the petitioners are facing prosecution for alleged commission of
offences under Sections 341/323/343/365/417/379/506/34 of the I.P.C., for which the learned J.M.F.C.
has taken cognizance. The said case was initiated on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the present
opposite party no.2 alleging inter alia that petitioner no.4, with the promise of marriage, had kept
physical relationship with her. He was also trying to disturb other marriage proposals of the informant.
On 12.07.2005, the marriage of the informant was settled at Dandisahi, but on the same day
petitioner nos. 1 and 2, who are the parents of petitioner no.4, took the informant to their house giving
assurance that they would perform her marriage with petitioner no.4 and on such assurance she went
to the house of the petitioners with her ornaments and cash of Rs.39,000/-. On her arrival in the
house of the petitioners, the informant was offered “sarbet” and after taking the same she became
unconscious. Whenever she regained consciousness, she was offered that drink again and again. It is
also alleged that she was kept tied. On 15.07.2005 in the night, on regaining consciousness and
having found that she had been untied, she escaped and came back to her parents’ house. On
investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they have been entangled in the case falsely by
the informant and in the meantime the informant has married elsewhere and she admits that due to
some family and property dispute and under ill advice of some persons, she had lodged the F.I.R.,
and in the meantime the dispute has been mutually resolved and she is not willing to proceed further
with the prosecution of the petitioners.
5. Opposite party no.2, the informant appeared in this case and filed an affidavit to the effect that
due to some dispute between the two families she had lodged F.I.R. against the petitioners on the ill
advice of some persons and that the dispute has in the meantime been resolved and she has married
to one Hemanta Ku. Mohanta and in the event of continuance of the criminal proceeding against the
petitioners her marital life and social reputation would be adversely affected. It is further stated in the
affidavit that she does not want to proceed with the prosecution. In view of such affidavit, this Court by
order dated 18.1.2010 directed opposite party no.2 to appear before the learned J.M.F.C.,
Pattamundai for recording of her statement and to send the statement for perusal of this Court.
Accordingly, opposite party no.2 appeared before the learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai on 03.02.2010
and her statement was recorded by the learned J.M.F.C. under Section 164, Cr.P.C. which has been
received in this Court and forms part of record. The said statement fully supports the stand taken by
opposite party no.2 in her affidavit filed in this court to the effect that the dispute has been amicably
settled and opposite party no.2 has already gone on marriage to another village and, therefore, she
does not intend to proceed further with the prosecution of the petitioners.
6. It is well settled that in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the High Court is
empowered to quash the proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that the interest of justice so
requires. Referring to its earlier decision in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrajirao Angre; 1988 (1) SCC 692, the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v.
State of Haryana and another; 2003 (II) OLR (SC) 101 held that where the opinion of the court is
that the chance of conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by
allowing the criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration, the special
facts of a case, quash the proceeding. Following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, this
Court in the case of Tasoraj Mahamad and others v. State of Orissa and another; 2004 (II) OLR
642, quashed the cognizance as the parties have sorted out their difference and the informant herself
requested for quashing of the cognizance taken against the accused-petitioner holding that the
continuance of the criminal proceedings will benefit none. The case of B.S.Joshi (supra) has also been
relied upon in the case of Pragyandipta Panda and others v. State of Orissa and another; (2005)
31 OCR 45 and proceeding was quashed on similar grounds.
7. In view of the statement and the affidavit of the informant (opposite party no.2), there is little
chance of conviction of the petitioners in the G.R.Case. No useful purpose will be served, if the trial
proceeds, which would be nothing but an abuse of process of the court. It would not be in the interest
of justice to allow the G.R.Case to proceed further. Therefore, this criminal misc. case is allowed and
G.R.Case No.283 of 2005 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai against the
petitioners is quashed.
This order be communicated to the learned trial court.
Application
allowed.