PROMOD KUMAR BASITA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the petitioner has sought for quashing of the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 819 of 1992, arising out of Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No. 381 of 1992 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur for the offence under Section 376, IPC.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the alleged offence took place in the year 1992, in the meantime, the informant Krushna Chandra Nayak has expired for which reason the prosecution would measurably fail to prove the allegations against the petitioner and further, in the meantime also the victim Sarala Navak has got married to some other person and does not want to proceed with the case in view of the compromise reached between the parties and therefore, the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner may be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Sri Ajaya Dalua v. State of Orissa, 2007 (II) OLR 444 whereby the learned single Judge by his order dated 17 -8 -2007 quashed the criminal proceeding initiated for the offence under Section 376, IPC relying on an affidavit sworn to by the alleged victim and concluding that since the victim would be adversely affected in her family life and has expressed her desire not to depose in the case, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceeding pending.

(3.) IN the light of the facts narrated herein above, the essential question that arises in the present case for consideration is as to whether a criminal proceeding for an offence under Section 376, IPC, (which is not compoundable), ought to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for the reasons as has been noted hereinabove.