HARI MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two accused persons in G. R. Case No. 410 of 1990 pending in the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nayagarh, have filed this revision for quashing the aforesaid criminal proceedings.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioner No. 2. The F.I.R. was lodged on 3-10-1990 by present opposite party No. 2 alleging that on 27-9-1990 at about 4 P.M., the two petitioners entered inside the house of the informant and at the instigation of petitioner No. 2, petitioner No. 1 outraged the modesty of opposite party No. 3, the daughter of the informant, and attempted to commit rape. After investigation was over, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 448/114/354/506/511/34, Indian Penal Code, and cognisance was taken by the Magistrate. Though in the charge sheet and order of cognisance, Section 511 alone was indicated, it is evident that the cognisance was in respect of the alleged offence under Section 376, read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code. Before commencement of the trial, a petition for compounding the offences was tiled on behalf of the informant as well as the alleged victim, the present opposite parties 2 and 3 respectively. The contents of the petition for compounding were read over and explained to the informant and the alleged victim personally in Court and upon their admission that the contents of the petition for compounding were correct, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate granted permission for compounding the offences under Sections 443/114/354/506/34, Indian Penal Code, and accordingly acquitted both the accused persons of those charges. However, since the alleged offence under Section 511 read with Section 376, Indian Penal Code, was not compoundable, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate refused permission to compound the said offence and fixed the matter for commitment of the accused persons to the Court of Sessions. At that stage, the two accused persons have approached this Court for quashing the proceeding.

(3.) Opposite parties 2 and 3 have entered appearance through an Advocate and have filed two separate affidavits reiterating the fact that a compromise has already been effected and it has been specifically stated that they do not intend to prosecute the two accused persons any further.