Allowed

Sudhir@Sudhakar@Kirtan Bihari Acharya v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC30 Nov 2022CRLMC/3359/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa allowed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking quashing of pending POCSO, rape, and related proceedings. The court exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding that the petitioner and the victim had married, warranting an end to the trials for marital stability and peace.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings under Special (POCSO) Case No.84 of 2021 arising out of Pallahara P.S. Case No. 285 of 2021 were quashed.

Sudhir@Sudhakar@Kirtan Bihari Acharya Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 3359 of 2022

¶3

Sudhir @ Sudhakar @ Kirtan Bihari …. Petitioner Acharya

¶4

Mr. Ramesh Chandra Behera, Advocate

-Versus-

Order No.

State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties
Mr. Sitikanta Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
30.11.2022

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party No.3. None appears on behalf of opposite party No.2

¶10

In the instant case, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the impugned order under Anneuxre-4 and chargesheet at Annexure-5 in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No.84 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 483 of 2021 arising out of Pallahara P.S. Case No. 285 of 2021 pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Angul on the ground of compromise.

¶11

Copy of the F.I.R. at Annexure-1 shows that Pallahara P.S. Case No. 285 of 2021 was registered under Section 363 IPC after the alleged

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

incident which led to the submission of chargesheet under 376 IPC besides other allied offences and Section 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meantime, there has been marriage between the petitioner and opposite party No.3, namely, the victim and in support thereof, she has filed an affidavit today in Court. It is claimed that the marriage was held at a temple on 28^th October, 2022 as per the Hindu customs & rites. Considering the said affidavit and the marriage between the parties, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal proceeding which is pending before the learned Special Court should be quashed in the interest of justice. The fact of marriage is confirmed by learned counsel for opposite party No.3.

¶15

Mr. Mishra learned counsel for the State objects to the quashing of the proceeding on the ground that the offences are grievous in nature and non-compoundable.

¶16

The petitioner and opposite party No.3 are physically present in Court today. The affidavit is filed in Court sworn by opposite party No.3 and on being asked, she admits about the marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner is also claimed to have solemnized his marriage with opposite party No.3 on 28^th October, 2022 at a temple.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid development and keeping in view the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi & Others Vrs. State of Haryana & Another (2003) 4 SCC 675 which dealt with inherent jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is of the view that since the petitioner and opposite party No.3 have married in the meantime and settled in life, in order to ensure peace

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

Kabita

¶20

and stability in their marital life, the criminal proceeding pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Angul should be brought to an end and quashed in exercise of jurisdiction Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶22

In the result, CRLMC stands allowed. 10. Consequently, the criminal proceeding in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No.84 of 2021 arising out of G.R. Case No. 483 of 2021 corresponding to Pallahara P.S. Case No. 285 of 2021 pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Angul is hereby quashed.

¶23

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶24

(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Sudhir@Sudhakar@Kirtan Bihari Acharya v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir@Sudhakar@Kirtan Bihari Acharya 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

Athani Sahu Vs Odisha Gramya Bank, Lanjijoda Branch

Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Md.Sajid Mian@Kheru Vs State of Odisha

Akshaya Jayapuria Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Baijayanti Rout Vs State of Odisha