Orissa High Court
Sri Shibashis Nahak And Others vs State Of Odisha And Another on 18 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3060 of 2019
Sri Shibashis Nahak and others .... Petitioners
Mr.B.P. Swain, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. D.R. Parida, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 18.11.2021
07. 1. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed
by the petitioners with a relief to quash the order dated 17.05.2018
passed in I.C.C. Case No.1116 of 2018 arising out of Capital Mahila
P.S. Case No.48 of 2018 and C.T. Case No.2569 of 2018 registered
under Section(s) 498-A/294/323/506/34 IPC and Section 4 of the
D.P. Act in view of the compromise decree dated 23.04.2020
passed in C.P. No.482 of 2019 by the learned Judge Family Court,
Cuttack for being necessary in the interest of justice.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the State and OP No.2.
3. It is contended by the petitioners that OP No.2
filed a complaint registered as I.C.C. Case No.1116 of 2018 for the
alleged offences which was sent to the IIC Mahila PS for registration
and investigation by an order of the learned court below under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., later to which, it was treated as an F.I.R.
and a criminal proceeding vide C.T. No.2569 of 2018 was
initiated, as a result. It is further contended that the learned court
below did refer the case to the Family Welfare Committee,
// 2 //
Bhubaneswar, for counseling which, however, did not yield any
result. In the meantime, as per the petitioners, petitioner No.1
approached the Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.476 of 2016 for
divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
wherein, OP No.2 appeared and filed a show-cause. Lastly, it is
apprised that petitioner No.1 and OP No.2, on the intervention of
the family friends and well wishers, decided to put an end to their
marital life by a settlement under a compromise vide Annexure-8
on the terms and conditions as to payment of alimony which was
received by OP No.2 under Annexure-9 and thereafter, both
approached the Family Court in C.P. No.482 of 2019 for a mutual
divorce in terms of Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
which was allowed on 23.04.2020. A certified copy of the said
order is filed before this Court, whereby, the learned Judge, Family
Court, Cuttack, dissolved the marriage between the parties held on
29.04.2015 by a decree of divorce on mutual consent as per and in
accordance with Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised in order to
quash the criminal proceeding pending before the learned court
below in C.T. Case No.2569 of 2018 arising out of I.C.C. Case
No.1116 of 2018 corresponding to Capital Mahila P.S. Case No.48
of 2018 in order to do substantial justice. A decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai and
others Vrs. State of Gujarat and another decided in C.A. No.1723
of 2017 has been referred to by the learned counsel for the
petitioners which relates to exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. setting out the guidelines to quash proceedings
in cases involving non-compoundable offences.
// 3 //
5. 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 not
compoundable or 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 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.
6. Considering the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the aforesaid decisions and having regard to the fact that
the marriage between petitioner No.1 and OP No.2 has been
dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 23.04.2020 on mutual
consent and to bring to an end to the litigation pending before the
learned court below, the Court is of the humble opinion that it is a
fit case where inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
should be exercised so as to quash the criminal proceeding in C.T.
No.2569 of 2018. In other words, in order to advance the cause of
justice pursuant to the mutual divorce vis-à-vis petitioner No.1 and
OP No.2 obtained in C.P. No.482 of 2019, the criminal proceeding
in C.T. No.2569 of 2018 and its continuation before the court of
learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar deserves to be quashed.
// 4 //
7. In course of hearing, petitioner No.1 and OP No.2
appeared in person in Court today. The counsel appearing for the
parties identified them and on the direction of this Court, both
sides submitted truly attested copies of their Aadhar Cards in
support of identification, which are kept in record.
8. Hence, it is ordered.
9. In the result, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
for the reasons stated herein above stands allowed. As a
consequence, the proceeding in CT Case No.2569 of 2018 pending
in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar is hereby directed to
be quashed.
10. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
KC Bisoi
