Allowed

Sanyashi Singh v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Nov 2022CRLMC/3129/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings under POCSO and IPC charges filed against the petitioner. Relying on a joint affidavit and marriage certificate establishing a lawful union, the High Court exercised its inherent powers to restore peace between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Special G.R. Case No.190 of 2022 arising out of Sundargarh Sadar P.S. Case No.267 of 2022 are hereby quashed.

Sanyashi Singh Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 3129 of 2022

¶3

Sanyashi Singh and another

¶4

…. Petitioners Mr. Jagabandhu Sahu, Advocate

-Versus-

Order No.

State of Odisha and Another …. Opposite Parties
Mr. Sitikanta Mishra, ASC, OP No.1
Mr. Akshaya Kumar Sahoo, Advocate for OP No.2
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
23.11.2022
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶9

Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceeding in connection with Spl. G.R. Case No.190 of 2022 arising out of Sundargarh Sadar P.S. Case No.267 of 2022 pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-PO (POCSO), Sundargarh on the ground of compromise and marriage between petitioner No.1 and opposite party No.2, namely, victim.

¶10

A copy of the FIR is at Annexure-1 and the same is perused by the Court. In fact, the FIR was lodged by the informant which was registered as Sundargarh Sadar P.S. Case No.267 of 2022 under Sections 294, 313, 376(2)(n), 506, 34 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meantime, there has been a compromise and settlement reached at between the parties and the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 took place and while claiming so, the original Marriage Certificate along with copy of the same are produced in Court which have been perused. In view of the aforesaid development, it is submitted that the criminal proceeding pending before the learned court below should be quashed in the interest of justice.

¶13

Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 admits the fact of marriage between petitioner No.1 and opposite party No.2.

¶14

Both petitioner No.1 and opposite party No.2 are physically present in Court. On being asked, petitioner No.2 namely, informant confirms the marriage between them. A joint affidavit by both the parties have been filed and the same is perused by this Court. It is evident from the Marriage Certificate that both have solemnized their marriage on 21^st November, 2022 before the Marriage Officer, Sundargarh.

¶15

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State on the other hand objects to the quashing of the criminal proceeding.

¶16

Considering the joint affidavit and the materials on record to show that petitioner No.1 and opposite party No.2 have married elsewhere and settled in their life and the fact of marriage has been claimed on the strength of Marriage Certificate, the Court is of the opinion that in order to restore peace and stability in the lives of the parties, the proceeding which is pending before the court below should be quashed by taking recourse to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vrs. State of Haryana & Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , wherein, it has been held

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

that inherent jurisdiction may be exercised taking into account the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Accordoing to the Court, it is a fit case where inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to bring an end to the litigation in order to restore peace and stability in the respective life of the parties.

¶19

Having regard to the above facts and considering the marriage of opposite party No.2 as presently she is married to another person and leading a happy marital life with her husband and even blessed with two children, the Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to quash the proceeding notwithstanding the fact that some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶20

In the result, CRLMC stands allowed. Consequently, the criminal proceeding in Spl. G.R. Case No.190 of 2022 arising out of Sundargarh Sadar P.S. Case No.267 of 2022 pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-PO (POCSO), Sundargarh is hereby quashed.

¶21

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

¶22

U.K.Sahoo

¶23

Page 3 of 3

Sanyashi Singh v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanyashi Singh 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

Ganeswar Palae Vs State of Odisha

Sriprakash Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Nari@Narendra Garadia Vs State of Odisha

Pakuni@Prakash Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Bichitra Nanda Das Vs State of Odisha

Binod Pradhan@Bulanda Pradhan Vs State of Odisha