Ashok Kumar Das Vs. State

Ashok Kumar Das vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Orissa Decided Jan 10, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1119037

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1119037
Court: Orissa High Court
Decided On: Jan 10, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar Das

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....in s.t.case no.80/193 of 2011 (criminal trial no.28 of 2011).pending in the court of learned adhoc addl. sessions judge, (ftc-i).balasore, arising out of balasore khaira p.s.case no.6, dated 22.11.2011, under section 363/506/34 ipc. the brief facts of the case is that the informantopposite party no.2 lodged a written report before the i.i.c., khaira police station, balasore, which was registered as kharia p.s.case no.6 of 2011, under section 363/506/34 ipc., alleging therein that on 14.1.2011 at about 5.45 p.m., his daughter (opposite party no.3) went to the tudigadia high school for witnessing jagya, as she did no.return home, and the informant could no.kno.about her whereabouts, on 15.1.2011 he lodged a written report. subsequently, he (informant) came to kno.that the present petitioner with the help of the villagers has kidnapped her daughter in a motorcycle and when he asked about his daughter to the parents of the present petitioner, they assured him that she will return. it was further alleged that on 22.1.2011 he received a telephone call from her daughter that the petitioner is trying to sell her and she requested the informant to save her immediately. uks 2 after completion of investigation, the i.o.submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and one sudama mallik and the learned j.m.f.c., soro vide order dated 20.6.2011 took cognizance of the offence under sections 366-a/376 ipc against the present petitioner and other accused persons. it is the case of the petitioner that he and the victim girl-opposite party no.3 had love relationship and they fled away from their respective homes and got married on 16.4.2012 at jagannath temple, nimapara, as per rites and customs by exchanging garland in present of well-wishers.it is further stated that the victim girl (opposite party no.3) has sworn an affidavit on 16.4.2012, as per annexure-4 series, stating therein that she has married to the petitioner and living with him as husband and wife and leading a.....

Full Judgment

CRLMC No.2049 of 2012 04.

10.01.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant-opposite party no.3.

None appears for the opposite party no.2 when the matter is called.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.has been filed by the accused-petitioners for quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated against the present petitioner in S.T.Case No.80/193 of 2011 (Criminal Trial No.28 of 2011).pending in the court of learned Adhoc Addl.

Sessions Judge, (FTC-I).Balasore, arising out of Balasore Khaira P.S.Case No.6, dated 22.11.2011, under Section 363/506/34 IPC.

The brief facts of the case is that the informantopposite party no.2 lodged a written report before the I.I.C., khaira police station, Balasore, which was registered as Kharia P.S.Case No.6 of 2011, under Section 363/506/34 IPC., alleging therein that on 14.1.2011 at about 5.45 P.M., his daughter (opposite party no.3) went to the Tudigadia High school for witnessing Jagya, as she did No.return home, and the informant could No.kNo.about her whereabouts, on 15.1.2011 he lodged a written report.

Subsequently, he (informant) came to kNo.that the present petitioner with the help of the villagers has kidnapped her daughter in a motorcycle and when he asked about his daughter to the parents of the present petitioner, they assured him that she will return.

It was further alleged that on 22.1.2011 he received a telephone call from her daughter that the petitioner is trying to sell her and she requested the informant to save her immediately.

uks 2 After completion of investigation, the I.O.submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and one Sudama Mallik and the learned J.M.F.C., Soro vide order dated 20.6.2011 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 366-A/376 IPC against the present petitioner and other accused persons.

It is the case of the petitioner that he and the victim girl-opposite party no.3 had love relationship and they fled away from their respective homes and got married on 16.4.2012 at Jagannath Temple, Nimapara, as per rites and customs by exchanging garland in present of well-wisheRs.It is further stated that the victim girl (opposite party no.3) has sworn an affidavit on 16.4.2012, as per Annexure-4 series, stating therein that she has married to the petitioner and living with him as husband and wife and leading a happy conjugal life.

It is accordingly submitted that as the petitioner has married to the victim girl (opposite party no.3) and leading a happy conjugal life, no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner, especially when the chances of his ultimate conviction are bleak.

The victim girl (opposite party no.3) has filed an affidavit stating therein that she left her house of own volition on 14.1.2010 and got married to petitioner on 16.4.2012 in Jagannath Temple, Nimapara, as per their caste and custoMs.It is further stated in the said affidavit that the informant, after her marriage to the petitioner, is leading a happy conjugal life and she does No.want to proceed with the case any further.

Considering the submission made and keeping in view the affidavit of the victim girl (opposite party no.3) and the fact that the petitioner and the victim girl have married and uks 3 residing together as husband and wife and leading a happy conjugal life, no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner, especially when the chances of his ultimate conviction are bleak.

Accordingly, the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in S.T.Case No.80/193 of 2011 (Criminal Trial No.28 of 2011).pending in the court of learned Adhoc Addl.

Sessions Judge, (FTC-I).Balasore, arising out of Balasore Khaira P.S.Case No.6, dated 22.11.2011, under Section 363/506/34 IPC.

and all consequential criminal proceedings are hereby quashed.

CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

………………….…… S.C.Parija, J.

Misc.

Case No.2264 of 2013 03.

02.12.2013 In view of the disposal of the CRLMC, no order is necessary.