Orissa High Court
Sudhir Kumar Sahoo @ Bulu And Anr vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opposite ... on 30 November, 2021
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.668 of 2016
Sudhir Kumar Sahoo @ Bulu and Anr. .... Petitioners
Mr. S.C. Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Pradhan, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Order No. ORDER
30.11.2021
4. 1. An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by
the petitioners with a relief to quash the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.645 of 2008 arising of out Kakatpur P.S. Case No.136 of 2008 on the ground that there has been a compromise between the parties, where after, a decree of divorce has been passed in C.P. No.347 of 2015.
2. The petitioners contend that O.P.No.2 lodged an FIR before Kakatpur P.S. alleging dowry related torture by petitioner No.1 and in-laws, later to which, a case was registered and finally, the learned court below on receiving charge sheet in G.R. No.645 of 2008, took cognizance of the offences by order dated 27.02.2012. A certified copy of said order has been filed under Annexure-1. It is further contended that O.P.No.2 had also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court in C.P. No. 574 of 2008 applying for maintenance. Lastly, as per the petitioners, when conciliation between petitioner No.1 and O.P.No.2 failed, an application under Section 13(B) of Hindu Page 1 of 3 // 2 // Marriage Act, 1955 was filed for dissolution of their marriage which was solemnized on 29.06.2005 and the same was allowed by the learned Judge Family Court, Cuttack vide order dated 16.02.2016. A copy of the order of the Family Court dated 16.02.2016 is at Annexure-2. Thus, considering the aforesaid development, the petitioners claimed for quashing of the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 645 of 2008.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since there is a decree of divorce between petitioner No.1 and O.P.No.2 vide Aannexure-2 passed by the Family Court which is in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties, necessary order is required to be passed in respect thereof to meet the ends of justice.
4. Leaned counsel for the State has not raised any objection with regard to quashing of criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 645 of 2008. No one has appeared for O.P.No.2 despite service of summons. In fact, the notice to O.P. No.2 was served with the return of A.D. which is kept in record. It can be said that there has been valid service of notice vis-à-vis O.P.No.2.
5. Leaned counsel for the petitioners referred to the terms and conditions and in particular clause IV thereof to contend that with such an understanding, mutual divorce was sought for and accordingly, it was allowed by the Family Court by order dated 16.02.2016 in C.P. No.347 of 2015. A copy of said application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on mutual consent is annexed to order of the Family Court dated 16.02.2016. In fact, according to the aforesaid clause, the parties agreed for withdrawal/dropping of criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.645 of 2008, while seeking for mutual divorce.
Page 2 of 3// 3 //
6. The settled position of law is that in case of matrimonial disputes, where, compromise effected between the parties at the time of separation and mutual divorce, power under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the Supreme Court decision in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 25 OCR (SC) 99 contended that inherent jurisdiction of High Courts may be exercised in a given fact situation for the end of justice and Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot stand as a bar. The law is quite settled which is to the effect that notwithstanding the fact that offences to be non- compoundable, a criminal proceeding which is of civil nature or relating to matrimonial dispute may be quashed exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Having regard to the settlement between the parties and more particularly due to the divorce decree obtained from the Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.347 of 2015 by petitioner No.1 and O.P.No.2, the Court is of the considered view that in order to do substantial justice, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 645 of 2008 is required to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. In the result, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. Consequently, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 645 of 2008 arising out of Kakatpur P.S. Case No.136 of 2008 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C, Nimapara is hereby quashed.
TUDU (R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Page 3 of 3