1.Bijayalaxmi Bhutia 2.Debasis Bhutia 3.Ankita Bhawani 1.State of Odisha 2.Madhusmita Das … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3210 of 2023 1.Bijayalaxmi Bhutia 2.Debasis Bhutia 3.Ankita Bhawani 1.State of Odisha 2.Madhusmita Das ….. Vs. ….. Petitioners Mr. R.C. Swain, Advocate Opposite Parties Ms. S. Patnaik, A.G.A. (for O.P. No.1) Ms. Aiswarya Dash, Advocate (for O.P. No.2) Order No. 02. CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 18.08.2023 (Through hybrid mode) 1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 09.07.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in C.T. Case No.6314 of 2021 arising out of Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.137 of 2021 taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioners. 2. Petitioner No.1- Bijayalaxmi Bhutia is the mother-in-law of opposite party No.2, petitioner No.2- Debasis Bhutia is the husband of opposite party No.2 and petitioner No.3- Ankita Bhawani is the sister- in-law of the opposite party No.2. Page 1 of 6 //2//
Legal Reasoning
…“This court has held that in cases of offences relating to matrimonial disputes, if the Court is satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled the disputes amicably, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, criminal proceedings inter-se parties can be quashed by exercising Page 3 of 6 //4// the powers under Article 142 of the 2 Constitution of India or even under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”… 7. In Basanta Kumar Sahoo and Others vs. State of Orissa and Another : 2023 (I) ILR-CUT-831, after the marriage between husband and wife had been dissolved by a decree of divorce, the husband and parents in law had approached this Court for quashing the criminal proceeding under Section 498-A IPC and other offences instituted by the wife. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another : (2013) 4 SCC 58 and Rangapaa Javoor (supra) and this Court in Pradipta Kumar Swain vs. State of Orissa : (2010) 15 SCC 238, this Court after going through the judgment granting divorce and the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, had quashed the proceedings in the GR case. 8. By judgment dated 01.08.2023 passed in C.P. No.283 of 2023 the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been dissolved. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack has observed therein as follows : “6. On perusal of the affidavit evidence of the petitioners, this court finds that their evidence corroborates their joint petition U/s.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 regarding Page 4 of 6 //5// their marriage and the fact of failure of conciliation. In support of their marriage they have submitted their marriage invitation card. In compliance to their compromise the wife-petitioner has already received Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees eleven lakh) only from her husband-petitioner towards her permanent alimony. The wife-petitioner has already received all her marriage articles and gold ornaments from her husband-petitioner. They have also stated that this divorce petition is filed as per their own consent which has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence.” 9. As the opposite party No. 2 has received permanent alimony of Rs 11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh only) and her marriage articles and gold ornaments; and as the marriage between the petitioner No.2 and opposite party no. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of mutual divorce, I am therefore satisfied that there has been a settlement between the parties and it would be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal case as no useful purpose would be served by keeping it pending. 10. The order dated 09.07.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in C.T. Case No.6314 of 2021 (arising out of Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.137 of 2021) taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioners and the proceeding in Page 5 of 6 //6// C.T. Case No.6314 of 2021 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar are accordingly quashed. 11. The CRLMC is allowed. 12. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application Bichi Judge (Savitri Ratho) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 28-Oct-2023 16:08:13 Page 6 of 6
Arguments
3. Mr. R.C. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that after submission of charge sheet in the case, on the intervention of the well-wishers, there has been an amicable settlement between the parties and the parties have agreed to withdraw the cases against them and had filed C.P. No.283 of 2023 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of mutual divorce. During pendency of this CRLMC, the said application has been allowed vide judgment dated 01.08.2023 and their marriage has been dissolved. The certified copy of the judgment has been filed by him. 4. Ms. Aiswarya Dash, learned counsel has appeared for the opposite party No.2 waiving notice. A joint affidavit has been filed by the petitioner No.2 and opposite party No.2 stating that she has received Rs.11.00 lakhs as permanent alimony and it has also been agreed that she will not proceed further in the Criminal case against the petitioners. At present there is no dispute between the parties for which they do not want to proceed with the case. She further submits that during pendency of this CRLMC the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by decree of mutual divorce and the opposite party No.2 does not have any objection if the further proceedings in C.T. Case No. 6314 of 2021, pending in the Court learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar are quashed. Page 2 of 6 //3// 5. Report had been called for from the IIC, Bhubaneswar Mahila Police Station regarding authenticity of the affidavit submitted before this Court. Instruction dated 16.08.2023 sent to the office of the learned Advocate General has been submitted by Ms. S. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate in Court today which is taken on record. It has been stated therein by the IIC that the complainant has confirmed that she and her husband Debasish Bhutia had mutually divorced and settled the matter and she has signed the affidavit which has been filed in this Court. 6. In the case of Rangappa Javoor vs. State of Karnataka : 2023 Live Law (SC)74, the appellant - Rangappa Javoor and his wife had entered into a settlement agreement and a decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted. The parties had agreed that the FIR and the proceedings arising there from should be quashed. But the application of the husband to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR, was dismissed by the High Court. In the Supreme Court, the wife did not appear though served with notice and it was stated that she had remarried. The Supreme Court held as follows: