A matrimonial dispute involving a minor petitioner who married the accused. The court observed no adverse allegations and noted their current marital status with children. Relying on B.S. Joshi, the court quashed the trial proceedings to meet the ends of justice.
The proceeding in G.R. Case No.2 of 2014 and the order of cognizance under Annexure-1 were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3234 of 2014
Smt. Parbati Sahu and another
…. Petitioners
Mr. T.K. Acharya, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Muduli, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 15.07.2022
No.
05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel
for the State.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
both are married and staying together and even blessed with children
and on that ground the instant petition has been filed seeking the
order of cognizance to be quashed and also the proceeding in G.R.
Case No.2 of 2014.
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
petitioner No.1 was recorded, she was a minor aged about 17 years. In any case, petitioner No.1 is claimed to have married the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that they are even blessed with two children and at present residing peacefully. Mr. Muduli, learned AGA submits that in fact statement of petitioner No.1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does reveal about her claim to have married petitioner No.2.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
TUDU
proceeding in G.R. Case No.2 of 2014 and consequential order of cognizance under Annexure-1 should be quashed in order to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, it is directed.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial proceedings in a case concerning a minor victim who subsequently married the accused should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the inherent jurisdiction is exercisable to quash proceedings when the petitioners are now married and having children.
Whether allowing the prosecution to continue would serve any real purpose when the victim does not allege anything adverse against the accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vrs. State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶13
(2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Parbati Sahu
State of Odisha
R.K. Pattanaik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
R.K. Pattanaik
Parties & counsel
