Sandeep Kumar Pattnaik v. …. Opposite Parties Mr. J. Katikia, AGA Mr. Mithun Das, Advocate (For O.P. No.2)
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2901 of 2023 Sandeep Kumar Pattnaik Petitioner Mr. P.S. Das, Advocate …. 1. State of Orissa 2. Sangeeta Pattnaik Versus …. Opposite Parties Mr. J. Katikia, AGA Mr. Mithun Das, Advocate (For O.P. No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. 03. ORDER 19.10.2023 (Through hybrid mode) 1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceeding in S.T. Case No.126 of 2022 pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar arising out of G.R. Case No.212 of 2021 which corresponds to Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.60 of 2021, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498- A/294/323/307/506 of IPC.
Legal Reasoning
;2023 (II) ILR-CUT-861, this Court has held as follows : “11. In cases of matrimonial disputes, in order to enable the parties to settle down in life and live peacefully by terminating their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court, it has been the view of the Courts that even if the offences are not compoundable under Section – 320 of the Cr.P.C , the proceedings should be quashed.” 7. In the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi vs Babita Raghuvanshi : (2013) 4 SCC 58 , the Supreme Court has held as follows : “ 14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said Page 4 of 7 // 5 // decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at. 15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non- compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. 16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in Page 5 of 7 // 6 // exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.” 8. As the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, keeping in mind the decisions of the Supreme Court and considering the submissions of the parties, their counsel and the affidavit of opposite Party No. 2, the proceeding in S.T. Case No.126 of 2022 pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar arising out of G.R. Case No.212 of 2021 which corresponds to Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.60 of Page 6 of 7 // 7 // 2021 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498- A/294/323/307/506 of IPC is quashed. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. ……………….. (Savitri Ratho) Judge puspa Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 27-Oct-2023 17:39:26 Page 7 of 7
Arguments
2. Mr. P.S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that due to some misunderstanding between husband and wife , opposite party No 2 had lodged FIR against the petitioner and his // 2 // family members. Chargesheet had been filed against the petitioner and his family members for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/294/323/307/506 of IPC .Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and is now pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar . As their daughter was studying in Adarsh Vidhyalaya, Baripada , opposite party no.2 was staying with her daughter In Baripada. He further submitted that during investigation, the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 in the presence of the family members and other well wishers and relatives , had settled the matter between them for which the opposite party no.2 did not want to proceed with the case. 3. On 13.07.2023 and 01.08.2023, a report had been called for from the I.I.C., Keonjhar Town Police Station. Report dated 07.08.2023 of the I.I.C., Keonjhar Town Police Station has been handed over by the learned Additional Government Advocate wherein it has been stated that on enquiring from the locality as well as from opposite party no.2, it was ascertained that the dispute between the petitioner, Sandeep Kumar Pattnaik and his wife, opposite party no.2, Sangeeta Pattnaik have been settled and they have been staying together with their daughter. As the daughter is pursuing her study at Baripada, which is where the parents of Page 2 of 7 // 3 // opposite party no.2, Sangeeta Pattnaik reside, hence she often stays there to take care of her daughter. But she comes to Keonjhar at regular intervals. The petitioner also visits the house of his in-laws at Baripada where their daughter is studying. The said report is taken on record. 4. On 11.08.2023, the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 had appeared on virtual mode from Baripada from the house of the parents of the opposite party no.2.They were duly identified by the counsels. Opposite party no.2, Sangeeta Pattnaik had submitted that the matter has been settled amicably between them as their daughter is studying in Baripada, she frequently goes to Baripada to take care of her and stays there and the petitioner also visits them at Baripada and stays there and both of them were present in Baripada on that day . She further submitted that she does not want to proceed against the petitioner in the case and has no objection if the case is quashed and she shall file an affidavit to that effect. 5. An affidavit has been subsequently filed by opposite party No.2 on 01.09.2023 stating that G.R. Case No.212 of 2021 was an outcome of a misunderstanding between her and her husband. The said dispute has already been settled and they have reunited and are leading happy and peaceful life with their only daughter. Page 3 of 7 // 4 // She does not want to proceed further in the case and has prayed that the same may be quashed. The affidavit forms part of the record. 6. In the case of Bhakta Prasad Swain v. State of Orissa and another reported in 2023 (II) OLR-488 : (2023) 91 OCR-762