The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3530 of 2024 Shyama @ Shyam Sundar Marandi …. Petitioner Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. B.K. Ragada, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
Order No. 06. 1. 2. ORDER 28.10.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. On 23.10.2024, the petitioner and opposite party no.2 have appeared in person before this Court through their respective counsel and they have also filed their self attested Aadhar Cards to establish their identity, which were taken on record. 3. At the instance of the opposite party no.2, the F.I.R., i.e., Kaptipada P.S. Case No.324 of 2021 came to be registered against the petitioner under Sections 498-A/323/342/294/406/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Udala. 4. The prosecution case is that on 20.6.2018 the informant got married to Shyam @ Shyama Sundar Marandi (present petitioner) as per Customs and Rituals. During course of marriage, all the house hold articles were given to the petitioner. Her husband/petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer at Keonjhar. The petitioner went to his work place leaving her at her in-law’s house. During her stay at her in-laws house, her in-law's members including husband demanded a Car, but as she told that she is financially unable to give the same. Then they tortured her both physically and mentally and threatened her to kill in life. She informed the fact to her husband and he took her along with him to his work place. Her husband also demanded for a car. Her husband did not keep physical relation with her and he was sleeping in another room and when she tried to enter there, her husband assaulted her. She was tolerated the behavior of her husband with a hope. In the mean time, she fell ill, but her husband did not take care of her and left her at her parental house. After being cure, her husband told her to stay with her in-laws and she stayed there but her in-laws tortured her. Again she stayed with her husband at Rourkela, but he tortured her. Since 9.8.2021, the informant is staying at her parental house. Hence, the F.I.R. 5. The petitioner is the husband of the opposite party no.2 and there was a matrimonial discord. Due to misunderstanding, the F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed C.P. No.105 of 2023 seeking divorce from the opposite party no.2. In the said proceeding, the parties have filed a joint affidavit dated 04.10.2024 inter alia stating that they have already settled their dispute and they have decided to get separated. The relevant part of affidavit dated 04.10.2024 reads as under: “6. That the compromise arrived at by the parties hereto has not been obtained by exercising fear, force, fraud, coercion or undue influence and now the dispute is settled between the parties with the following terms and conditions given below: A. That the Petitioner is a service holder and he paid Rs.16,75,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand) for future maintenance i.e. permanent alimony to the respondent as her full and final settlement amount out of which Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) through two numbers of demand drafts drawn in the State Bank of India in favour of the respondent vide DD No.004964 dated 03-10-2024 worth Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) and DD No.004965 dated 03-10-2024 worth of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) the rest amount worth of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand) paid to the respondent in shape of cash and Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) has already been paid in shape of DD on dated 19-09- 2024. The respondent hereby acknowledged the receipt of the full and final amount of permanent alimony. B. That the respondent shall not claim any further amount from the petitioner towards her permanent alimony in future and shall not claim any civil rights as she has already received the aforesaid amount towards her full and final settlement with regard to her alimony and simultaneously the petitioner also undertakes that he will not claim to return back the amount in the event of re-marriage of the respondent and also will not claim any kind of civil rights in future and the petitioner is also free to settle his life in elsewhere and in that event the respondent will not make any claim therein. C. That in view of the compromise arrived in between the parties, the respondent undertakes to withdraw the proceeding u/S 125 Cr.P.C. vide Cr.P. No.158/2021 pending before this Hon’ble Court, besides she undertakes to withdraw in lieu of tjhis compromise of Kaptipada P.S. Case NO.324/2021, corresponding to C.T. noi.1135/2021 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., udala which has already been challenged by the petitioner and his parental family members ( those are accused persons of the said F.I.R.) before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in CRLMC No.3530/2022 and CRLMC No.3525/2022 for quashing of the F.I.R. or entire criminal proceeding which are pending in that case the Respondent further undertakes to file compromise petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in the above mentioned CRLMC cases indicting therein that in lieu of this compromise affidavit she is no more interested to proceed with the Kaptipada P.S. Case No.324/2021 and if the entire criminal proceeding will be quashed against the present petitioner and his parental members then she having no objection at all and in failure to do so by the respondent then the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. D. That there is no Appeal or any Application pending before any court. High Court or Supreme Court against each other except the CRLMC no.3530/2022 and CRLMC No.3525/2022 before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.” 6. Pursuant to settlement, permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.16,75,000/- has been paid to the respondent. Thereafter, the learned Judge, Family Court, Bairpada vide order dated 04.10.2024 allowed the divorce petition and passed a decree of divorce. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid development, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court for quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated by the respondent. 8. On the query from the Court, the informant/opposite party no.2, who appears through virtual mode, has stated that she has already received the permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.16,75,000/* (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand) from the petitioner and separated from him. Therefore, she does not want to proceed further in this case against the petitioner. 9. Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the State submits that the parties have settled their dispute and the informant/opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioner. Therefore, in the peculiarity of the present case, this Court can give indulgence as there is no legal impediment. 10. Regard being had to the aforementioned circumstances and since the opposite party no.2 is not willing to proceed against the petitioner, the present petition is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi & others vs. State of Haryana & another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675. Since subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of trial will be a futile exercise, I am inclined to quash the criminal proceeding. 11. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case and submissions made at bar, Kaptipada P.S. Case No.324 of 2021 corresponding to C.T. Case No.1125 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Udala and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed. 12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2024 15:44:01 amit (S.S. Mishra) Judge