Dismissed

Kalia @ Kalipada Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Aug 2019CRLMC/446/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Special Leave Petition to quash criminal proceedings involving rape and offences under POCSO Act, the court held that Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to quash prosecution for heinous offences like rape, especially involving a minor victim, despite alleged compromise.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed at the stage of admission without adjudication on merits.

Kalia @ Kalipada Das Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

CRLMC No.446 of 2019

¶2

05.08.2019

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶4

2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in Spl. G.R. Case No.03 of 2019, arising out of Paradeep P.S. Case No.100 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No.456 of 2018, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur on the ground that he is leading a happy conjugal life with the opposite party no.3-victim.

¶5

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.3-victim supports such contention. 4. Admittedly, the opposite party no.3-victim was minor at the time of occurrence.

¶6

The F.I.R. allegation reveals a cognizable case under Section 363 of I.P.C. The materials on record collected during investigation reveal that offences to have been committed under Sections 363/376(2)(n) of I.P.C. and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶7

5. No doubt, non-compoundability of an offence is no ground to exercise a power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the prosecution as held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions which has been taken note of by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others vrs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466. The Apex Court in that case taking note of almost all the earlier decision, such as, Gian Singh vrs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi vrs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari vrs. State of

¶8

¶9

Maharashtra, (2011) 13 SCC 311, Dimpey Gujral vrs. UT, Chandigarh, (2013) 11 SCC 497, Shiji vrs. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705, State of Rajasthan vrs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149, in paragraph-29 to quash the criminal prosecution on the ground of compromise in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., have held as follows :-

¶10

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

¶11

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶12

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶13

(i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶14

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶15

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the

¶16

¶17

Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.”

¶18

6. Since in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), the Apex Court have held not to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the offences of heinous and serious nature, such as, murder, rape, dacoity etc. inasmuch as the same has serious impact on the Society, even though non-compoundability does not stand on the way of this Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Reverting back to the case of the petitioner, since he has been indicted in heinous and serious offences as stated, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has no case for quashment of the aforesaid criminal proceeding initiated against him on the ground stated and, as such, I am not inclined to entertain the prayer made in this application to adjudicate the same on merit after hearing the parties. 7. Accordingly, this CRLMC stands dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶19

…………………..

¶20

S.Pujahari, J.

¶21

Kalia @ Kalipada Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalia @ Kalipada Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samsan Bagha Vs State of Odisha

Dharani Parida@Dharanidhar Parida Vs State of Odisha

Subrat Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Prasanta Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Netranand Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Biju @ Bijay Arisal @ Bijaya Kumar Arisal Vs State of Odisha