The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC NO.22 of 2020 (In the matter of application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). Madhumita @ Madhusmita Nayak and others … Petitioners -versus- State of Orissa and another … Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Dash , Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA [O.P.No.1] Mr. A. Panigrahi, Adv. [O.P. No.2] CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING :31.01.2023 DATE OF JUDGMENT:03.02.2023 G. Satapathy, J. 1. The petitioners seeking the indulgence of this Court to invoke inherent power U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. pray to quash the entire criminal proceeding and order taking cognizance of offences passed on CRLMC No.22 of 2020 Page 1 of 8 03.09.2014 by the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack in G.R. Case No.1223 of 2013 arising out of Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.265 of 2013 on the grounds of settlement with the informant. 2. Since the dispute between the parties having already stated to be settled, it would be unnecessary to reproduce the entire set of facts here, but the gist/summary of facts are extracted here for better appreciation in the matter and un-veiling the facts, it is stated that the petitioner No.3 and O.P.No.2 were admittedly the husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 27.01.2012 in terms of Hindu Custom and Rights, but subsequently, when dissension arose between them, O.P.No.2 lodged a
Legal Reasoning
FIR against the petitioner for subjecting her to torture and cruelty for demand of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) despite cash of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) and household articles and appliances along with 15 tolas of gold CRLMC No.22 of 2020 Page 2 of 8 ornaments were presented at the time of marriage. On the FIR of O.P.No.2, Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.1223 of 2013 was registered and the matter was investigated into resulting submission of charge- sheet against the petitioner leading to taking cognizance of offences by the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack by the impugned order. While the matter stood thus, the matter was amicably settled and the marriage between the petitioner No.3 and O.P.No.2 was annulled by a decree of divorce on mutual consent passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on 28.09.2022 in C.P. No.689 of 2019. Hence, this CRLMC for the relief indicated supra. 3.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing the CRLMC, Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 jointly submits in presence of petitioner No.3 and O.P.No.2 that the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties and the marriage between the CRLMC No.22 of 2020 Page 3 of 8 petitioner No.3 and O.P.No.2 has been annulled by a decree of divorce of competent Court on mutual consent U/S.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and, thereby, the parties having settled their differences and living peacefully and separately with harmony, the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is nothing, but an abuse of process of Court. On the aforesaid submissions, learned counsels pray to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners. In reply, Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned AGA prefers to formally oppose the prayer of the petitioners and O.P. No.2. 4. There appears hardly any dispute about the relationship between the parties and it is also never disputed by O.P.No.2 that her marriage with petitioner No.3 was annulled by a decree of divorce passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.689 of 2019. Besides, O.P.No.2 being identified by her learned counsel Mr. A. Panigrahi is CRLMC No.22 of 2020 Page 4 of 8 personally present and she submits in the Court that she does not want to proceed against the petitioners in this case and she has already settled the dispute. She also acknowledges to have filed a joint affidavit with the petitioner No.3 in this case. In such affidavit, O.P.No.2 is stated to have received Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) as a permanent alimony towards settlement in the matter and the dispute between them has already been amicably resolved. On being asked, O.P.No.2 expresses her satisfaction over the compromise with the petitioners in the open Court. Similarly, petitioner No.3 being identified by his learned counsel Mr. S.K. Dash, submits in the Court that the matter has already been amicably settled with O.P.No.2 and he has already paid the permanent alimony to O.P.No.2 and, accordingly, he and O.P.No.2 are residing separately and peacefully in harmony with their respective family. CRLMC No.22 of 2020 Page 5 of 8 5. In the above facts and circumstance, this Court considers it apposite to refer to the following observation of the Apex Court in K. Srinivas Rao Vrs. D.A. Deepa; (2013) 5 SCC 226, at Paragraph-44 which is extracted as under:- “We, therefore, feel that though offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is not compoundable, in appropriate cases if the parties are willing and if it appears to the criminal court that there exist elements of settlement, it should direct the parties to explore the possibility of settlement through mediation. This is, obviously, not to dilute the rigour, efficacy and purport of Section 498-A IPC, but to locate cases where the matrimonial dispute can be nipped in bud in an equitable manner. The Judges, with their expertise, must ensure that this exercise does not lead to the erring spouse using mediation process to get out of clutches of the law. During mediation, the parties can either to part company on mutually agreed terms or they may decide to patch up and the stay settlement to come through, the complaint will have to be quashed. In that event, they can approach the High Court and get the complaint quashed. If, however, they choose not to settle, they can proceed with the complaint. In this exercise, there is no loss to anyone. If there is settlement, the parties will be saved from the trials and tribulations of a criminal case and that will reduce the burden on the courts which will be in the larger public interest. Obviously, the High together. In either case for CRLMC No.22 of 2020 Page 6 of 8 Court will quash the complaint only if after considering all circumstances it finds the settlement to be equitable and genuine. Such a course, in our opinion, will be beneficial to those who genuinely want to accord a quietus their matrimonial to disputes.” A plain reading of the above observation of the Apex Court, it unambiguously appears that the parties can either decide to part company on mutually agreed terms or they may decide to patch up and stay together, but in either case the settlement of the parties would endorse the quashing of complaint. 6. In view of the facts discussed above and the observation made in K. Srinivas Rao (supra), especially when both the petitioner No.3 and O.P.No.2 had settled their dispute amongst themselves by obtaining a decree of divorce on mutual consent and keeping in view the parties entering into a compromise in this case to remain peacefully by residing happily and separately and practically, they having done so, this Court considers CRLMC No.22 of 2020 Page 7 of 8 that in the circumstances, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue against the petitioners is nothing, but an abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceeding against the petitioners as well as the order taking cognizance of offences by the impugned order may be required to be quashed. 7. In the result, the CRLMC is allowed, but in circumstance there is no order as to cost. As a logical sequitur, the impugned order together with the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is hereby quashed. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 3rd of February, 2023/Subhasmita CRLMC No.22 of 2020 Page 8 of 8