GOURIRANI DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 205 of 1996 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Jaleswar. As it appears from the record, the opposite party No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. in the Bhogarai Police Station on 10.6.1996 stating that petitioner No. 1 who was aged about 17 years had been kidnapped by petitioner No. 2. Though initially the F.I.R. was for the offence under Section 363 I.P.C., subsequently the same was converted to an of fence alleged to have been committed under Sections 366 and 376 of the Penal Code. The petitioner No. 2 is the husband of petitioner No. 1. Both of them jointly have filed this application for the relief as aforesaid. In the application it is stated that while the petitioner No. 2 was serving as a peon in the Veterinary Hospital at Simulia he came in contact with the petitioner No. 1 and they fell in love. Proposal for marriage given by the petitioner No. 2 was accepted by the petitioner No. 1, but same was opposed by opposite party No. 2 who is the brother of petitioner No. 1. Apprehending that the opposite party No. 2 may create problem, both the petitioners decided to marry in a temple, and on 14.11.95 they got married in the premises of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri. It is further stated by both the petitioners that the petitioner No. I was born on 19.10.1977 and was a major by the time she got married and that the petitioner No. 1 had voluntarily left with the petitioner No. 2 both and are now living as husband and wife in the house of petitioner No. 2. An affidavit has also been filed by the brother of the petitioner No. 2 in this Court stating that both the petitioners are leading happy conjugal life and have been blessed with two children in the meantime.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State states that since at the time of occurrence the petitioner No. 1 was minor, even consent of petitioner No. 1 will not be material.