Tapas Ranjan Pradhan @ Chiku And vs State Of Odisha And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 11899 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  CRLMC No.664 of 2018

                 Tapas Ranjan Pradhan @ Chiku and       ....              Petitioners
                 another
                                                        Mr.P.K. Pradhan, Advocate
                                             -versus-
                 State of Odisha and another           ....         Opposite Parties
                                            Mr. K.K. Gaya, Addl. Standing Counsel


                          CORAM:
                          JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                                         ORDER

Order No.                               18.11.2021

 02.        1.              In the instant case, the petitioners have moved an

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside/quash the F.I.R./proceeding in C.T. No.313 of 2014 arising out of Deogarh P.S. Case No.101 of 2014 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh on the grounds, inter alia, that there has been a compromise between the parties and a decree of mutual divorce as a result thereby obtained in MAT Suit Case No.42 of 2016 under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 passed by the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Deogarh.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and OP No.2.

3. The petitioners contend that the proceeding in C.T. No.313 of 2014 in connection with Deogarh P.S. Case No.101 of 2014 under Section(s) 498-A/294/323 and 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act is to be quashed in view of an amicable settlement with OP No.2 later to the decree of divorce passed in MAT Suit Case No.42 of 2016. It is further contended that on

// 2 //

account of reconciliation and a decree of mutual divorce and especially to serve the best interest of the parties, the criminal proceeding in C.T. No.313 of 2014 is required to be brought to an end. In support of such a claim divorce, a certified copy of the decree dated 08.07.2017 passed in MAT Suit Case No.42 of 2016 is filed as at Annexure-4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application for mutual divorce was filed before the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Deogarh after a settlement was reached at between the parties consequent upon which decree under Annexure-4 was passed dissolving the marriage on mutual consent between petitioner No.1 and OP No.2.

5. Learned counsel for OP No.2 contended that in order to do justice to the parties pursuant to the compromise and mutual divorce, the proceeding in CT No.313 of 2014 deserves to be quashed.

6. On a perusal of Annexure-4, it is revealed that on the terms and conditions of compromise submitted to the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Deogarh, a decree of mutual divorce dated 08.07.2017 was passed between petitioner No.1 and OP No.2 in MAT Suit Case No.42 of 2016. In fact, the compromise petition has been treated as a part of the decree as is made to appear from Annexure-4.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajib Kumar Sharma and others Vrs. State of U.P. and others reported in MANU/SC/1849/2019 decided on 21.10.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.1599 of 2019 would contend that in exercise of jurisdiction

// 3 //

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the criminal proceeding pending before the learned court below in CT No.313 of 2014 should be quashed. In the decision (supra), in connection with a matrimonial dispute, High Court of Allahabad declined to quash the proceedings, which was intervened and directed to be dropped by the Supreme Court in the interest of justice and additionally by exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

8. 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.

9. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions and considering the decree obtained by the parties in MAT Suit No.42 of 2016, whereby, a mutual divorce has been granted in terms of Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court is of the considered view that for the ends of justice, the criminal proceeding in CT No.313 of

// 4 //

2014 pending in the learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh is needed to be quashed.

10. Hence, it is ordered.

11. In the result, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for the reasons discussed herein above stands allowed. As a consequence, the proceeding in CT No.313 of 2014 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh is hereby directed to be quashed.

12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

KC Bisoi