Orissa High Court
Balunkeswar Dash & vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opp. ... on 10 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4453 of 2024
Balunkeswar Dash & .... Petitioners
Others Kashinath Pattanaik,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S.N. Biswal, ASC
Mr. S. Dash,
Advocate for O.P.
No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 10.03.2025
03.
1.Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. dated 05.11.2023 in connection with Nachuni P.S. Case No.285 of 2023 came to be registered against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323,342, 506, 34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, the opposite party No.2 reported at Nachuni P.S. alleging that, she had been married to the petitioner No.1 since last seven years back. After few days of their marriage, Page 1 of 5 her husband and in-law members started torturing her demanding more dowry. They have also threatened to kill her, if she will not fulfill the dowry demand. Hence, the F.I.R.
4. After the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the present case on 25.12.2023 for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 342, 506, 34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioners.
5. The learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences as mentioned above against the petitioners. Before the trial commenced, the parties have settled their disputes and on the basis of the settlement terms, the present petition has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding.
6. The Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 are present in person in Court today. The Opposite Party No.2 is represented by her counsel whereas Petitioner No.1 is appearing in person. In so far as Petitioner No.2 & 3 are concerned, they are the parents of Petitioner No.1 and they are senior citizens. Therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioners has moved an application seeking exemption of personal appearance of the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 before this Court. For the reason stated in the application, the same is allowed. The personal appearance of Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are exempted.
Page 2 of 57. The opposite party No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 10.03.2025 before this Court, inter alia, stating as under:-
"3. (i) That, I am the Opp. Party No.2 in the above CRLMC filed by my husband Balunkeswar Dash under Section-482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceeding/FIR in Nachuni PS Case No.285 of 2023 which corresponds to JMFC(Chilika) G.R. Case No.677 of 2023 for the offence under Section-498-A, 294, 323, 342, 506/34 IPC.
ii) That, I am the informant in the above case and on the basis of my F.I.R. Nachuni P.S. Case No.285 of 2023 has been registered under Section-498-A, 294, 323, 342, 506/34 IPC against the petitioner who is my husband, father-in-law & mother-in-law respectively.
(iii) That, I have gone through the petition filed by the petitioners under Section-482 Cr.P.C. and understood the contents thereof.
(iv) That, my marriage was solemnized with the petitioner No.1 in the year 2016 and after the marriage we both spouses led a happy conjugal life and out of our wedlock we have been blessed with a daughter in the year 2017.
(v) That, my husband (Petitioner No.1) is working under Police Department for which he seldom visits a house and always busy in his duty for which our daughter was neglected as there was no male member in our family except my old ailing father-in-
law (Petitioner No.2) to take of our daughter for which there was constant misunderstanding with my husband which prompted me to lodge the present F.I.R.
(vi) That, as a matter of fact, I was never subjected to any ill-treatment and torture by the petitioners at any point of time for demand of dowry.
(vii) That, in the meantime, due to the interference of relation, well-wishers, we have resolved our misunderstanding and the dispute has been amicably settled further at present, I am staying in my in-laws house and leading a happy conjugal life with my husband.
(viii) That, I have no grievance against the Petitioners further I would have no objection if the above criminal proceeding shall be quashed since I am no more interested to proceed further in the above case rather continuance of the criminal proceeding may create Page 3 of 5 domestic misunderstanding in future.
(ix) That, under such circumstances, the criminal proceeding arising out of Nachuni P.S. Case No.285 of 2023 which corresponds to J.M.F.C.(Chilika) G.R. Case No.677 of 2023 may be quashed.
(x) That, the facts stated in the affidavit are true and correct and I am filing this affidavit out of my sweet will and desire and without any undue influence and coercion, I am putting my signature being present in the court premises today."
8. On the query from the Court, the opposite party No.2, who is present in Court, has stated that, she has given her consent for resume her marital life and started residing with her matrimonial home. Due to misunderstanding, she has lodged the F.I.R. Now she has settled the dispute with the petitioners. She joins with the petitioners praying for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution initiated by her against the petitioners.
9. Mr. S.N. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. S. Dash, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submit that, the dispute is essentially arising out of a matrimonial discord and due to misunderstanding between the parties, the F.I.R. has been lodged and now the parties have settled their dispute. The opposite party No.2, the informant who is present in the Court, has reiterated her stand that, she has settled her dispute with the petitioner No.1 and she has filed the affidavit before this Court to that effect. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in quashing the F.I.R.
Page 4 of 510. Regard being had to the submissions made above, and the fact that the parties have settled their dispute, I am inclined to allow the present petition. In the fact scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of trial at this stage would be a futile exercise and the present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303; B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition deserves merit.
11. Taking into consideration the aforementioned judgments, the facts of the case and submissions made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Nachuni P.S. Case No.285 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.677 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Chilika and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Narayan Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Mar-2025 20:55:19 Page 5 of 5