The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 12 of 2025 Lalit Mohan Sahoo @ Rinku and others …. Petitioners Mr. J. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 17.01.2025 01. 1. At the instance of opposite party no.2, F.I.R. No. 283 of 2023 came to be registered against the petitioners. 2. The petitioners by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are seeking quashing of the F.I.R. in connection with Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.283 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1220 of 2023 pending in the court of learned JMFC (IV), Cuttack for the alleged commission of the offences Page 1 of 6 punishable under Sections 498-A/294/354-B/342/323/ 307/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 28.10.2023 one Biswabandita Sahoo complaint that on 25.10.2023, at about 07.00 PM her husband return to home inebriated condition. When the informant confronted, he assault the informant and in the meantime her in laws also joined him. They all combinedly pushed her by holding her neck for which she fail down on ground. Thereafter all the accused persons assaulted the informant by abusing in absence languages. The husband of the informant kicked her chest and dragged informant to the kitchen. All the accused persons pulled her wearing apparel and her elder brother in law assaulted back side of her head and pressed her neck and mouth with the intention to kill her. She informed about the matter over telephone to her brother and mother. Thereafter her brother and sister- in-law reached at the spot to save her. But all the accused persons assaulted her brother and pressed his neck with the intention to kill him. Hence, the FIR. 4. Petitioner no.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2, whereas petitioner nos.2 to 5 are the in-laws of opposite party no.2. The petitioners and opposite party no.2 are present in Court and are being represented by Page 2 of 6 their counsel and identified by them. They have also filed the photocopies of their self-attested Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. 5. Before trial commence, parties have settled their dispute. It is submitted that due to misunderstanding, the FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against the petitioners. But now they have settled their dispute and the parties have revived their marital life. On query from the Court, opposite party no.2 stated that she does not want to proceed against her husband as she is staying happily with him. Both the parties have jointly filed an affidavit dated 06.01.2025 stating inter alia as under:- “2. That, the petitioner no.1 being the husband of the opposite party no.2 and petitioner no.2 to 5 are the in-laws of opposite party no.2 has filed the above CRLMC case under section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNS Act, for quashing criminal proceeding/FIR in Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.283 of 2023, which corresponds to GR Case No.1220 of 2023 pending before the JMFC (IV), Cuttack, offence u/s 34/323/342/351-B/294 and 498-A of IPC against the petitioner. 3. That opposite party no.2 is the informant in the above case and on the basis of her FIR Chauliaganj PS Case No.283 of 2023 has u/s 34/323/342/351-B/294 and 498-A of IPC against the petitioners who is her husband, registered offence been Page 3 of 6 brother in law, mother-in-law, and sister-in- law. 4. That we have gone through the petition filed by the petitioners under section 482 of Cr.P.C /Section 528 of B.N.S, Act and understood the contents there of. 5. That the marriage of the petitioner no.l was solemnized and after the marriage the petitioner no.l and opposite party no.2 both led a happy conjugal life and out of the wedlock we both blessed with a girl child. 6. That the petitioner No.l is working in his own sweet shop for which he seldom visits house and always busy in his shop and did not gave proper time for opposite party no.2 and his girl child for which there was constant misunderstanding between us which prompted the wife/opposite party no.2 to lodge the present FIR. 7. That as a matter of fact the opposite party no.2 was never subject to any ill treatment and torture by the petitioners at any point of time for demand of dowry. to in the meantime due the 8. That interference of relatives and well wishers we resolved our misunderstanding and the dispute has been amicably settled. Further of present the opposite party no.2 are staying in petitioner’s house and leading a happy conjugal life as husband and wife. 9. That the opposite party no.2 has no grievance against the petitioners. Further she would have no objection if the above criminal proceeding shall be quashed. Since the opposite party no.2 no more interested to proceeded further in the case neither Page 4 of 6 continuance of the criminal proceeding may create domestic misunderstanding in future. proceeding 10. That under such circumstances the of criminal Chauliaganj PS Case No. 283 of 2023, which corresponds to GR Case No.1220 of the J.M.F.C(IV), 2023, pending before Cuttack may be quashed.” arising out 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that since the parties have settled their dispute and appeared before this Court and conjointly praying for quashment of the FIR and the criminal proceeding, there is no legal impediment for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. 7. Regard being had to the submissions made by the parties and the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably, this being a matrimonial dispute and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, I am of the considered view that subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of the trial would be a futile exercise. Therefore, the petition deserves merit. Page 5 of 6 8. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.283 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1220 of 2023 pending in the court of learned JMFC (IV), Cuttack is quashed. 9. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Judge (S.S. Mishra) Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Jan-2025 18:08:17 Page 6 of 6