Orissa High Court
S. Balashankar vs State Of Odisha And Another on 14 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2448 of 2018
S. Balashankar .... Petitioner
Mr.G. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. K.K. Gaya, Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate for informant
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 14.12.2021
06. 1. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the
behest of the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal
proceeding in T.R. No.159/70 of 2018 emanating from Nayapalli
P.S. Case No.103 of 2017 pending in the file of 2nd Additional
District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda on the stated
ground.
2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and OP No.2.
3. The petitioner is the husband of OP No.2, as both of them
got married at Madurai on 20.01.2016. But, thereafter, the
petitioner allegedly discovered that OP No.2 and her family had
mislead him about their caste by mis-representation and fraud and
in the aforesaid backdrop, an application under Section 12(1) (c) of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 was filed by him before the court of
learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai which was registered as
HMOP No.368 of 2016. It was alleged that during the pendency of
// 2 //
said application for annulment of marriage in the concerned court,
OP No.2 lodged the F.I.R. as a consequence whereof, Nayapalli
P.S. Case No.103 of 2017 was registered. However, according to
the petitioner, the matter between him and OP No.2 was amicably
settled. The petitioner impleading OP No.2 as an intervenor filed
I.A. No.111 of 2020 stating about the fact regarding the alleged
reconciliation between the parties, whereafter, this Court by order
dated 17.02.2020 had directed the State to obtain instruction from
the concerned PS as to if the parties are living together as spouses
and furnish a report in respect thereof. In the meantime, the
petitioner apprised the Court about the reconciliation by filing a
memo with an order sheet of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in
C.M.C. No.438 of 2016 and disposal of the case during the
National Level Lok Adalat dated 27.11.2020 on account of
amicable settlement between the parties.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend
that since the matter ended in reconciliation between the parties,
the fact which is revealed from orders dated 27.11.2020 and
19.12.2020 passed in C.M.C. No.438 of 2016, the criminal
proceeding in T.R. Case No.159/70 of 2018 arising out of Nayapalli
P.S. Case No.103 of 2017 should be quashed in the interest of
justice and also to ensure harmony in the relationship of the parties
concerned.
5. Learned counsel for OP No.2 contended that the wife and
the petitioner husband have had reconciliation and therefore,
having regard to the aforesaid development and that, it is being
evident from the orders of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in
C.M.C. No.438 of 2016, the proceeding in T.R. Case No.159/70 of
// 3 //
2018 should be quashed and brought to an end in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. As earlier mentioned, a report was to be furnished by the
State as was directed by this Court in I.A. No.111 of 2020 by order
dated 17.02.2020. But then, no such report could be received by
this Court despite such an order. In view of the subsequent
development as to the closure of the case revealed from C.M.C.
No. 438 of 2016, the parties, as it appears, have sought for
quashing of the proceeding pending before the learned court
below. The order of this Court for furnishing a report was passed
prior to the closure of the case between the parties in the month of
December, 2020. Having regard to the above facts and submissions
made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties,
such as, the petitioner and OP No.2, the Court is of the considered
view that the proceeding in hand should be disposed of by a final
order.
7. The settled position of law is that even if offences
alleged in a criminal proceeding not to be compoundable, it can
still be quashed, keeping in view the larger interest of the parties. In
plethora of decisions, the Supreme Court has held and observed
that there is no bar in exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and also Section 482 Cr.P.C. in order to
quash a criminal proceeding, when the offences are non-
compoundable and when it is required to advance the cause of
justice. A reference may be had to the celebrated judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vrs. State of
Haryana and another decided on 13.03.2003 in SLP (Criminal)
No.3416 of 2002, wherein, it has been observed that in case of
amicable settlement and resolution of matrimonial dispute between
// 4 //
the parties and for the sake of their interest and so as to set at rest
all litigations pending between them, jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. may be exercised which is not limited by any restrictions.
8. No doubt, initially, the petitioner had approached for
quashing of the criminal proceeding on different grounds but then,
due to the settlement and reconciliation between the parties, it is
now being prayed for in view of the aforesaid development. Being
conscious of the settled position of law and the fact that the parties
have finally reconciled their differences, the Court is of the humble
opinion that for the ends of justice, the criminal proceeding in T.R.
No.159/70 of 2018 lying at the disposal of learned court below
should be quashed.
9. Hence, it is ordered.
10. In the result, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the criminal proceeding in
T.R. No.159/70 of 2018 arising out of Nayapalli P.S. Case No.103
of 2017 pending in the file of learned 2nd Additional District &
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda is hereby directed to be
quashed.
11. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
KC Bisoi
