Quashed

Ranjit Kumar Guru@Tukuna v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC27 Oct 2021CRLMC/1034/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 366 IPC where the parties settled amicably after the matrimonial dispute, with children born from the union, rendering further prosecution futile.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in G.R. Case No.965/2005 arising out of Binjharpur P.S. Case No.110/2005 under Section 366/34 IPC and all consequential criminal proceedings are quashed.

Ranjit Kumar Guru@Tukuna Vs State of Odisha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.1034 of 2020

¶3

Ranjit Kumar Guru @ Tukuna …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Sangram Mishra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

….
State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties
Mr.P.B.Tripathy,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
27.10.2021.
Order No.

¶7

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶8

¶9

Heard Mr. Sangram Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. P.B.Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and also heard Ranjit Kumar Guru @ Tukuna-the Petitioner, Ramakanta Nayak-Opp.Party No.2 and Snigdha Rani Nayak-Opp.Party No.3 all of whom are present in Court pursuant to the directions issued by this Court earlier.

¶10

The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance dated 26.7.2007 as also the proceedings in G.R.

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

// 2 //

¶13

Case No.965/2005 arising out of Binjharpur P.S. Case No.110/2005 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur.

¶14

The facts of the case are that the present Opposite Party No.2-informant lodged F.I.R. before the Binjharpur P.S. on 12.9.2005 alleging that on 09.9.2005 at 11 A.M. his daughter Snigdha Rani Nayak-Opp.Party No.3 had gone to Singhpur to get her certificates xeroxed and attested, but did not return home. The informant went to Singhpur in search of his daughter but could not find her. Ultimately, on 10.9.2005, the informant came to know that the present Petitioner and some other persons had abducted his daughter and took her initially to Panikoili and thereafter to Bhubaneswar by changing two Taxis. The informant took up the matter with the Village Panchayat and also the father of the petitioner and together they went to Bhubaneswar, but it came to light that the Petitioner and his daughter had already left for Surat. As such he lodged report before the Police Station leading to Registration of the P.S. Case and G.R. Case as mentioned above.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the F.I.R. was lodged on misunderstanding as the informant’s daughter had not informed him while leaving their house and that she had gone with the Petitioner on her own volition and also married him subsequently. It is further submitted that two children have been born out of such wed-lock.

¶16

Page 2 of 4

¶17

// 3 //

¶18

A joint affidavit has been filed being sworn by the Petitioner-Ranjit Kumar Guru @ Tukuna and Opp.Party No.3Snigdha Rani Nayak, who is his wife. Another affidavit has been filed by the informant Ramakanta Nayak-Opp.Party No.2. Both the deponents and the informant being present in the Court have admitted the statements made therein.

¶19

On the above basis, it is submitted that as the proceeding had been initiated due to misunderstanding, but has since been resolved amicably and as the concerned parties do not wish to continue with the proceeding, the same may be quashed.

¶20

A perusal of the affidavit filed by the informant reveals that he had lodged the F.I.R. due to misunderstanding and that his daughter having married the Petitioner is presently residing with him peacefully being blessed with a son and a daughter. It is further stated that he does not wish to proceed with the criminal case in question.

¶21

A reading of the joint affidavit filed by the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.3 also reveals that Opp.Party No.3 had not been kidnapped by the Petitioner rather she had gone with him out of love and affection and having married him, is presently residing peacefully. It is also mentioned in the joint affidavit that two children, aged about 14 years and 12 years have been born out of such wed-lock. As such it is stated that because of such settlement neither the informant nor Opp.Party No.3

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

// 4 //

¶24

would like to proceed against the Petitioner in the criminal case.

¶25

Considering the submissions as noted above and the joint affidavit filed by the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.3 as also the affidavit filed by the informant-Opp.Party No.2, it is evident that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and moreover the parties have been residing peacefully since then being blessed with two children.

¶26

Under such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner especially when the chance of his conviction in the said case is bleak. This Court is, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the Petitioner. The proceedings in G.R. Case No.965/2005 arising out of Binjharpur P.S. Case

¶27

No.110/2005 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code and all consequential criminal proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶28

The CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶29

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶30

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

AKB

Page 4 of 4

// 5 //

Page 5 of 4

Ranjit Kumar Guru@Tukuna v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Kumar Guru@Tukuna 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sapneswar Adhikari@Sapi@Sapani Adhikari Vs State of Odisha

Upendra Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Bhanumati Jena Vs State of Odisha

Pitabasa Pangi @ Pita Vs State of Odisha

Akshya Kumar Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Sridhar Sutar Vs State of Odisha