The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC NO.3120 of 2019 (In the matter of application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). Manas Ranjan Swain and Others … Petitioners -versus- State of Orissa and Another … Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. A.C. Nayak, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA [O.P. No.1] Mr. A.K. Jena, Advocate [O.P. No.2] CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT :25.04.2023 G. Satapathy, J. 1. The petitioners seeking the indulgence of this Court to invoke inherent power U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. pray to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in Tangi P.S. Case No.165 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1288 of 2013 pending in the file of the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack CRLMC No.3120 of 2019 Page 1 of 8 on the grounds of amicable settlement of matrimonial dispute between husband-cum-petitioner No.1 and his family members with wife-cum-O.P.No.2. 2. Since the dispute between the parties having already stated to be settled, it would be unnecessary to reproduce the entire set of facts here, but the gist/summary of facts are extracted hereinafter for better appreciation in the matter and in narrating the facts, it appears that the petitioner No.1 and O.P.No.2 were admittedly the husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 04.06.2013 in terms of Hindu Rites and Custom, but subsequently, when dissension arose between them,
Legal Reasoning
O.P.No.2 lodged an FIR against the petitioners for subjecting her to torture and cruelty for non- fulfillment demand of additional dowry articles of Washing Machine and Cooler, although as per demand cash of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand), 5 tolas each of Gold and Silver ornaments and household articles which cost Rs.80,000/- CRLMC No.3120 of 2019 Page 2 of 8 (Rupees Eighty Thousand) were presented to the groom at the time of marriage, but for non-fulfillment of delivery of Washing Machine and Cooler, the petitioners started torturing O.P.No.2. Accordingly, on the FIR of O.P.No.2, Tangi P.S. Case No.165 of 2013 was registered and the matter was investigated into resulting submission of charge-sheet against the petitioners leading to taking cognizance of offences by the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack 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 a decree of divorce on mutual consent U/S. 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on 21.09.2016 in C.P. No.99 of 2016, on payment of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) in shape of Bank Draft as permanent alimony to O.P.No.2 by petitioner No.1 in the learned trial Court. Hence, this CRLMC by the petitioners for quashing the criminal proceeding on the ground of compromise. CRLMC No.3120 of 2019 Page 3 of 8 3.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing the CRLMC, Mr. A.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Jena, learned Counsel for the O.P.No.2 have jointly submitted in presence of petitioner No.1 and O.P.No.2 that the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties and their marriage had already been annulled by a decree of divorce of competent Court U/S.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and, thereby, the parties having 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 for petitioners and O.P.No.2 pray to quash the entire criminal proceeding instituted 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 CRLMC No.3120 of 2019 Page 4 of 8 disputed by O.P.No.2 that her marriage with petitioner No.1 had already been annulled by a decree of divorce passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.99 of 2016 on mutual consent. Besides, O.P.No.2 being identified by her learned counsel Mr. A.K. Jena is personally present and she has submitted 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 acknowledged to have filed an affidavit stating therein to have no objection if the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.1288 of 2013 is quashed. On being asked, O.P.No.2 has expressed her satisfaction over the compromise with the petitioners in the open Court. Similarly, petitioner No.1 being identified by his learned counsel Mr. A.C. Nayak, has submitted in the Court that the matter has already been amicably settled with O.P.No.2 and he has already paid the permanent alimony of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to O.P.No.2 and, CRLMC No.3120 of 2019 Page 5 of 8 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 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:- to locate cases where “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 the IPC, but 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 together. In either case for 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. CRLMC No.3120 of 2019 Page 6 of 8 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 accord a quietus to their matrimonial disputes.” 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 has already settled their dispute amongst themselves after obtaining a decree of divorce and keeping in view the parties entering into a CRLMC No.3120 of 2019 Page 7 of 8 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 abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceeding against the petitioners in Tangi P.S. Case No.165 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1288 of 2013 pending in the file of the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack are hereby quashed. 7. In the result, the CRLMC is allowed to the extent indicated above, but in circumstance there is no order as to cost. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 25th of April, 2023/Subhasmita CRLMC No.3120 of 2019 Page 8 of 8