Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings if extraordinary circumstances arise, such as marriage between accused and victim, even in serious non-compoundable offences.

JUDGMENT :

R.K.PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioner challenging the criminal proceeding in connection with CT(S) No.94 of 2018 and its continuance before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal on the grounds inter alia that the FIR and other materials on record do not make out a prima facie case against him and particularly with respect to an offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC for which he has been charged with besides Section 328 and 506 and Sections 66 -E and 67-A IT Act 2000 which is, therefore, to be quashed in exercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

2. The FIR was lodged by the informant on 4^th March 2018 alleging therein the mischief committed by the petitioner as against the victim daughter. In fact, the events and circumstances leading to the lodging of the FIR (Annexure-1) have been described therein by the informant mother. Later to the FIR lodged and on completion of investigation, a chargesheet under the alleged offences was submitted against the petitioner, consequent upon which, charge was framed and trial started. Later to the commencement of trial, referring to the evidence of the victim and other materials with subsequent developments, the entire proceeding pending before the learned Sessions court has been challenged by the petitioner demanding that it is needed to be quashed in the interest of the justice.

3. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State besides Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the party No.2.

4. After the FIR was lodged by the informant, Gondia PS Case No. 36 dated 4^th March 2018 was registered under Sections 292 (A), 354(C) and 506 IPC and Sections 66 -E and 67-A IT Act but finally, the chargesheet was submitted for an offence under Section 376 (2)(n) as well. Thereafter, the learned court below framed the charge for all the offences including (2)(n) . The prosecution of the petitioner particularly for an offence of rape punishable under (2) (n) is challenged on the ground that it is not prima facie made out as against the background facts especially considering the consensual relationship between the parties and that the victim declined to be medically examined and her marriage with the petitioner in the meantime. Whether with the allegations on record and framing of a charge under section 3762(j)(n) and later to the commencement of the trial, inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C should at all with exercised to quash the proceeding on any such grounds raised.

5. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions, such as, Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1392 of 2011) decided on 25^th October 2021; Ramgopal and Another Vs. State of U.P. dated 29^th September, 2021 (Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012) besides Ananda D.V. Vs. State and Another (Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2021) disposed of by order dated 12^th April 2021 to contend that extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is required to be exercised in the best interest of the parties notwithstanding the commencement of trial for the reason that after settlement of the dispute, the petitioner and opposite party No.2 have married and happily leading their conjugal life at present. It is further submitted that there is no bar or any kind of restriction in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at any stage of the criminal proceeding and even during the pendency of appeal, if it is really needed to do complete justice to the parties involved. Referri