The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Mar-2025 13:40:00 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.621 of 2025 Dr. Abhisek Upadhyay & Another …. Petitioners Dr. Abhishek Upadhyay (in person) State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Parties -versus- Mr. S.N. Biswal, ASC Mr. B. Mohapatra, Advocate for O.P. No.2 CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
Order No. 03. 1. Heard. ORDER 05.03.2025 2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with UPD, Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.47 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. Case No.3766 of 2020 came to be registered against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/323/294/406/ 506/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Mar-2025 13:40:00 Bhubaneswar. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, the opposite party No.2 reported at Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. alleging that, she had married to the petitioner No.1. After few days of their marriage, her husband and in-law members started torturing her many times 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 in the present case has already been filed on 28.05.2021 for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/323/294/406/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 5. When the matter stood thus, 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. 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. Petitioner No.1 moved an application seeking exemption of personnel appearance before this Court for Petitioner No.2, who is his mother. For the reason stated in the application, the same is allowed. The personal appearance of Petitioner No.2 is exempted. 6. Pursuant to the settlement terms, the petitioner No.1 and opposite party No.2 had applied for Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Mar-2025 13:40:00 dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, while allowing C.P. No.368 of 2024 vide judgment dated 11.02.2025 had allowed the application and dissolved the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and opposite party No.2 by mutual consent. 7. The petitioners have now moved the present application seeking quashing of the criminal prosecution initiated against them by the opposite party No.2 on the basis of the settlement terms. 8. The petitioner No.1 appears in person and the opposite party No.2 being represented by her counsel. They have also filed the photocopies of their self- attested Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. 9. The opposite party No.2 has also filed an affidavit dated 05.03.2025 before this Court, inter alia, stating as under: “3. That, I got married to the Petitioner on Club, at 19.02.2017 Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar in presence of family members of both parties as per Hindu customs and rituals. Railway Officers 4. That, no child is born out of our wedlock. 5. That, I am staying separately from the Petitioner since 06.05.2018. 6. That, both the parties had filed joint compromise petition in the court of Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar in C.P. No.368/2024 and the same was disposed on 11.02.2025 with a decree of divorce in favour of the Petitioner and OP. Party no.2. Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Mar-2025 13:40:00 7. That, I have no objection if the prayer of the Petitioner made in this CRLMC No.621/2025 & IA No.448/2025 is allowed. 8. That, I am in possession of all streedhan, gold articles, Jeweler, household and other articles. 9. That, I do not want to proceed in connection to case bearing C.T. No.3766/2020 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. 10. That, I do not have claim from the Petitioner No.1 & 2 in future.” 10. The opposite party No.2, who is physically present in Court, on the query from the Court, has stated that, she had given her consent for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner No.1 and there is no demand of alimony. Hence, she does not have any grievance against the petitioners. 11. Mr. S.N. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1-State submits that, the dispute is essentially arises out of a matrimonial discord leading to registration of the F.I.R. and 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. 12. 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 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Mar-2025 13:40:00 scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of trial at this stage would be a futile exercise. However, 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. 13. Taking into consideration the aforementioned judgments, the facts of the case and submissions made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.47 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. Case No.3766 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed. 14. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Judge (S.S. Mishra) Narayan Page 5 of 5