The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC NO.618 of 2017 (In the matter of application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). Siddhartha Das Adhikary and Others … Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha and Another … Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. B.K. Sharma, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA [O.P.No.1] Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Adv. [O.P. No.2] CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.07.2023 G. Satapathy, J. 1. The petitioners seeking the indulgence of this Court to invoke inherent power U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceeding and order taking cognizance of offences passed on 30.12.2013 CRLMC No.618 of 2017 Page 1 of 8 by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case
Legal Reasoning
No. 2525 of 2011 arising out of Bhubaneswar, UPD, Mahila P.S. Case No.152 of 2011 for commission of offences U/Ss. 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 406/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act on the grounds of amicable 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 herein, but the gist/summary of facts are extracted for better appreciation in the matter and un-veiling the issues as the petitioner No.1 and O.P.No.2 were admittedly the husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 29.04.2007 in terms of Hindu Custom and Rights, but subsequently, when dissension arose between them, O.P.No.2 lodged a FIR against the petitioners for subjecting her to torture and cruelty for demand of dowry and for other criminal acts. On the FIR of O.P.No.2, Bhubaneswar, UPD, Mahila P.S. Case No.152 of 2011 was registered and the matter CRLMC No.618 of 2017 Page 2 of 8 was investigated into resulting submission of charge-sheet against the petitioners leading to taking cognizance of offences indicated supra by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar by the impugned order. While the matter stood thus, the matter was amicably settled and the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and O.P.No.2 was annulled by an ex- parte decree of divorce passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar on 24.02.2022 in C.P. No.613 of 2013 which was filed by OP No.2. Hence, this CRLMC for the relief indicated supra. 3.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing the CRLMC, Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 jointly submits in presence of petitioner No.1 and O.P.No.2 that the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties and the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and O.P.No.2 has been annulled by an ex-parte decree of divorce of competent Court and, thereby, the parties having CRLMC No.618 of 2017 Page 3 of 8 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.1 was annulled by an ex-parte decree of divorce passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in C.P. No.613 of 2013. Besides, O.P.No.2 being identified by her learned counsel Mr. S.S. Mohanty is 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 and deed of settlement CRLMC No.618 of 2017 Page 4 of 8 with the petitioner No.1 in this case. In such affidavit, O.P.No.2 has stated that she has no objection if the G.R. Case No. 2525 of 2011 is quashed. Further in the settlement deed, she has acknowledged to have received Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten 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.1 being identified by his learned counsel Mr. B.K. Sharma, 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. 5. In the above facts and circumstance, this Court considers it apposite to refer to the following CRLMC No.618 of 2017 Page 5 of 8 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 stay the 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 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 together. In either case for CRLMC No.618 of 2017 Page 6 of 8 accord a quietus disputes.” to their matrimonial 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.1 and O.P.No.2 had settled their dispute amongst themselves by obtaining a decree of divorce 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 that in the circumstances, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue against the petitioners is nothing, but an CRLMC No.618 of 2017 Page 7 of 8 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 in G.R. Case No. 2525 of 2011 now pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar is hereby quashed. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th July, 2023/Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Jr.Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Jul-2023 15:24:10 CRLMC No.618 of 2017 Page 8 of 8