JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Date of hearing
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.963 of 2017 Anupam Behera and others …. Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, (Advocate) For Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K Maharaj, ASC,
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.S. Chaini, Adv.(O.P. 2) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of hearing : 13.10.2023 Date of Judgment:13.10.2023 V. Narasingh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The CRLMC has been filed for quashing of annexure dated 16.07.2015 in C.T. No.4999 of 2013 by the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar under section-498(A)/323/307/294, inter alia, on the ground of compromise. 3. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section-482 Cr.P.C. is invoked by the Petitioners for quashing the order of cognizance order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar in C.T. Case No.4999 of 2013, under Sections- 498(A)/323/307/294/406/506/34 of IPC. CRLMC No.963 of 2017 Page 1 of 6 4. It is apt to note here that Bhubaneswar UPD Mahila P.S. Case No.342 of 2013 was instituted at the behest of opposite Party No.2 against the present Petitioners and was registered under Sections- 498(A)/323/294/307/354/506/34 of IPC. 5. The Petitioner No.1 is the husband, Petitioner No.2 and 3 are the father & mother-in-law and Petitioner No.4 and 5 are the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the Opposite Party No.2(Smt. Simarekha Dalai). 6. The ground on which the quashing is sought is that in the meanwhile the matter has been settled inter se between the parties and affidavit to the said effect has been filed by the informant opposite party No.2 (Smt. Simarekha Dalai), which is on record. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the said affidavit submits that the case at hand is primarily is an offshoot of matrimonial dispute and there is no chance of any conviction and in fact continues of the proceeding would be an abuse of the process of law. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on paragraph-3 and 4 of the affidavit filed by the informant, which is extracted hereunder. “ xxx xxx xxx 3. That I am the wife of the petitioner No.1 and due to some misunderstanding I had lodged the aforesaid case against the petitioners. In the meantime all the dispute among us has been resolved on the intervention of the gentlemen. CRLMC No.963 of 2017 Page 2 of 6 4. That now I do not want to proceed with the above all mentioned case since I am leading a happy conjugal life with my husband and other family members.” xxx xxx xxx” 9. Learned counsel for the informant reiterates the stand in the affidavit filed by the informant and submits that since the matter has been settled and she is leading a happy conjugal life with her husband and other family members, the proceeding may be quashed. 10. One of the offences of which cognizance has been taken is under Section-307 of IPC and adverting to the same it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that since the same is non- compoundable one, this Court should be circumspect in quashing the proceeding notwithstanding the compromise inter se between the parties. 11. It is apt to note here that power of the Court to quash the proceeding in cases of this nature which are primarily out of matrimonial disputes have been succinctly dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others V. State of Haryana and another, reported in, AIR 2003 SC 1386. 12. In paragraph-12 of B.S. Joshi and others(Supra), it is stated thus “xxx xxx xxx It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes xxx xxx xxx” 13. The power of this Court to quash the proceeding independently bereft of compounding of offences as stated in CRLMC No.963 of 2017 Page 3 of 6 Section-320 of the Cr.P.C. was the subject matter of consideration by the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh V. Laxmi Narayan and others,2019(5)SCC 688 wherein Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court on the reference laid down the law as under: “ xxx xxx xxx 13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: i) ii) iii) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; Such power is not to be exercised those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity,etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; in Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious CRLMC No.963 of 2017 Page 4 of 6 offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and the circumstances stated hereinabove; in v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart is a the ground on society, on there that CRLMC No.963 of 2017 Page 5 of 6 settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the the accused was accused, namely, whether absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc. xxx xxx xxx” 14. Considering the factual matrix of the case at hand in which the informant has stated in the affidavit that she is leading a happy conjugal life with her husband and in-laws and taking into account the nature of allegations, this Court is of the opinion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be a exercise in futility and quashing the proceeding in view of the attending circumstances would meet the ends of justice. 15. Accordingly the proceeding in respect of C.T. No.4999 of 2013, corresponding to Mahila P.S. Case No.342 of 2013, pending before the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar is quashed. 16. The bail bond of the accused be cancelled and surety be discharged. 17. 18.
Decision
Accordingly, this CRLMC stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 13th October, 2023/ Soumya Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Oct-2023 12:01:19 CRLMC No.963 of 2017 Page 6 of 6