SAHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in both these cases have prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 256 of 1998 arising out of Raibania P.S. Case No. 36 of 1998 on the file of the J.M.F.C, Jaleswar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Both the cases were heard together and this order disposes of both the matters.

(2.) PETITIONER in Cri. Misc. Case No. 4179 of 1998, namely, Sahan Singh, and the three petitioners in Cri. Misc. Case No. 5101 of 1999 are the accused persons in the aforesaid case under Sections. 376(2)(g) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged commission of gang rape on opposite party No. 2 -Basanti Singh on 11.8.1998 at about 6 p.m. while she was returning from weekly market, by lifting her on a bicycle to a nearby field. On the oral report of opposite party No. 2, the O.I.C. of Raibania Police Station registered the case and took up investigation. It is stated by the petitioners that petitioner Sahan Singh and opposite party No. 2 got married on 9.9.1998 in support of which they have sworn affidavits on the same date. According to them as per their caste custom, opposite party No. 2 was dragged by Sahan Singh and his friends on 18.8.1998 and put vermilion and garland on her and the marriage was completed but the parents of petitioner Sahan Singh did not allow opposite party No. 2 to enter inside their house for which she came back from the house of petitioner Sahan Singh and at the instigation of the enemies of petitioner Sahan Singh, opposite party No. 2 filed the present false case against the four petitioners. It is stated that at the intervention of gentlemen, the matter was resolved on 9.9.1998 and petitioner Sahan Singh and opposite party No. 2 have sworn affidavits on that date and have been residing in one house as husband and wife. Since opposite party No. 2 was aged about twenty years and voluntarily resided with petitioner Sahan Singh as his legally married wife, further continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of law. Hence the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid G.R. Case is exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention. In the case of Mahesh Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1988 SC 2111, it was held by the apex Court that though the offence under Section 307, IPC is not compoundable under Section 320, Cr.P.C. it would be proper for the trial Court to permit the parties to compound the offence in the peculiar circumstances of the case where one of the accused was a lawyer practicing in lower Court and the counter case arising out of the same transaction had already been compounded. In the case of Sudam Charan Barik v. State and Ors., reported in (1994) 7 OCR 207, the same view has been taken by this Court. In the case of Sudhakar Naik and ors. v. State and ors., reported in *(1996) 11 OCR 77, it has been held by this Court :