The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2321 of 2022 & CRLMC No.372 of 2025 CRLMC No.2321 of 2022 Minati Behera …. Petitioner Mr.Pranab Kumar Samantaray, Advocate State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Parties -versus- Mr.Bibekananda Nayak, AGA CRLMC No.372 of 2025 Gouri Shankar Behera …. Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
Mr.B.P.Tripathy, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rakesh Behera, Advocate State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Parties -versus- Mr.Bibekananda Nayak, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
Order No. ORDER 31.01.2025 Page 1 of 6 05. 1. Heard. 2. In both the aforementioned petitions, at the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Sambalpur Mahila P.S. Case No.52 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2579 of 2020 came to be registered against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/294/506/34 of the IPC r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Sambalpur. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, the complainant-the opposite party No.2 reported at the P.S. alleging that after her marriage, her husband, Gouri Sankar Behera, father-in-law Mana Govinda Behera and mother-in-law Minati Behera (the present petitioner) tortured her both physically and mentally and abused her in filthy languages and threatened her with dire consequences to kill her demanding more dowry. Hence, the F.I.R. 4. The charge sheet was filed in the present case on 31.01.2021 for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/294/506/34 of the IPC r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 5. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 04.06.20213, has taken the cognizance of the offences as mentioned above. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said cognizance order dated 04.06.20213 have Page 2 of 6 assailed before this Court by filing the petition separately. 6. When the trial is about to commence in the present case, the parties have settled their dispute and on the basis of the settlement terms, the present petitions have been filed. 7. The petitioners and the opposite party No.2 are present in the Court today physically being represented by their respective counsel. They have also filed the photocopies of their self-attested Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. The parties have also filed joint affidavit dated 31.01.2025, inter alia, stating as under: “1. That the 1st party is the petitioner and mother-in- law of the Opp. Party No.2 and 2nd party is the Opp. Party No.2 (Informant) in this case. The Xerox copy of the Aadhaar Card & Passport of both the parties are filed. 2. That on 17.07.2020, the Opp. Party No.2 lodged an FIR before the IIC, Sambalpur Mahila PS and it was registered as Sambalpur Mahila PS Case No.52 of 2020 for commission of offences U/s. 498-A/ 294/506/34 of IPC r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioner and Gouri Sankar Behera. Subsequently, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken for commission of the said offences. 3. That the husband of the opp. party No.2 filed C.P. Case No.979 of 2019 before learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar. The opp. party No.2 entered appearance in that case. During pendency of the Civil proceeding before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar looking to the age and future of both the parties, counsels of both the parties along with the mediator of family court mediation center tried their level best to re-unite them. However, the re-union attempt was failed. Page 3 of 6 Finally both the parties came to a conclusion that they will be separated on mutual consent on payment of permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) to the opp. party No.2 by the husband of the opp. party No.2. Further it was also decided that the opp. party No.2 will co-operate with her husband and mother-in-law in quashing of criminal proceeding arising out of Sambalpur Mahila PS Case No.52 of 2020 for commission of offence U/s. 498(A)/294/506/34 of IPC r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act and Badagada PS Case No.681 of 2023 for commission of the offences U/s.498-A/ 341/ 294/323/506 of IPC before Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. 4. That during pendency of the civil proceeding before learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar the dispute between both the parties was come to a compromise table and as per the compromise the husband of the opp. party No.2 already executed Demand Draft worth of Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs) in the name of the opp. party No.2. 5. That it is respectfully submitted in accordance with such compromise the C.P. Case No.979 of 2019 before learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 30.01.2025 was ended into compromise and decree of divorce was allowed on payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) to the 2nd party. that 6. That it is respectfully submitted that since the dispute between the opp. party No.2 & her husband was settled amicably, hence the opp. party No.2 does not want to proceed further against the present petitioner in the criminal proceeding arising out of Sambalpur Mahila PS Case No.52 of 2020 for commission of offence U/s. 498(A)/ 294/506 /34 of IPC r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 7. That we both the parties are swearing this affidavit without any threat, coercion inducement, pressure or promise, rather we are swearing this affidavit with our sweet will. We will also not dispute this compromise affidavit in future.” 8. The opposite party No.2, who is present in the Court today, on the query from the Court, states that Page 4 of 6 she has already settled the dispute with the petitioner. On her consent, the divorce proceeding has been initiated mutually and the petition has been allowed by the Court below vide order dated 30.01.2025. She has also received the permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) from the petitioner. Therefore, she does not have any grievance against the present petitioner. Hence, she joins with the petitioner praying for quashing of the present proceeding. 9. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1-State submits that, the dispute is essentially arising out of a matrimonial discord leading to registration of the F.I.R. and the parties have settled their dispute. They have also filed the joint affidavit before this Court in that regard. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in quashing the F.I.R. 10. 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 scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of trial at this stage would be a futile exercise. 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 Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Page 5 of 6 another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition deserves merit. 11. Taking into consideration the aforementioned judgments, the facts of the case and submissions made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Sambalpur Mahila P.S. Case No.52 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2579 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Sambalpur and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed. 12. Both the CRLMCs are accordingly disposed of. Judge Subhasis (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 31-Jan-2025 19:17:22 Page 6 of 6