Justice G. Satapathy of the Orissa High Court, while referring to the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A Deepa of the Supreme Court noted that 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 the complaint.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner by way of the current petition has invoked the inherent power u/s 482 of CrPC and they have prayed to quash the entire criminal proceeding pending in the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Tigiria on the grounds of amicable settlement of a matrimonial dispute between husband-cum-petitioner No.1 and his family members with wife-cum-O.P.No.2.
Petitioner no. 1 and the Opposite party no. 2 were admittedly the husband and wife, but when dissension arose between them the wife lodged an FIR against the petitioners for subjection her to torture and cruelty for the demand of additional dowry of cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. It was contended that even though dowry articles were given to the petitioners at the time of marriage, the petitioners started torturing the wife for additional dowry. FIR was registered and the chargesheet was submitted but later on, the husband and wife amicably settled the dispute, and the marriage between the two was annulled by a decree of divorce. Hence, the current appeal has been filed for quashing the criminal proceeding on the ground of compromise.
The learned counsel for the petitioners and O.P. No. 2 that is the wife had jointly submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and their marriage has been annulled and the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is nothing, but an abuse of process of Court.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court noted that there is hardly any dispute about the relationship between the parties and O.P. No. 2 has submitted that she does not want to proceed against the petitioners in this case and that she has already settled the dispute.
The court then found it appropriate to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao Vrs. D.A. Deepa; (2013) 5 SCC 226, accordingly it was observed 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 the complaint.
The court then noted in respect of the current case that both the parties have already settled the dispute and continuance of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of court and hence the criminal proceedings were quashed.
The Decision of the Court:
The CRLMC was allowed and the criminal proceeding against the petitioners was quashed.
Case Title: Amulya Kumar Sahoo and Others v. State of Odisha and Another
Coram: Justice Sashikanta Mishra
Case No.: CRLMC NO. 1423 of 2019
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. D.K. Sahoo, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, AGA [O.P.No.1]; Mr. A. Dash, Advocate [O.P. No.2]
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
