Orissa High Court
Manoj Kumar Sasmal And Others vs State Of Odisha And Another on 24 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2567 of 2015
Manoj Kumar Sasmal and others Petitioners
Mr. L.N. Rayatsingh, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rout, AGA
Mr. S.K. Sahoo, Advocate for O.P.No.2
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 24.08.2022
No.
06. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State. None appears for opposite party No.2.
2. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed challenging the
order of cognizance i.e. Annexuree-1 passed in G.R. Case No.413 of
2014 arising out of Nimapada P.S. Case No.83 of 2014 pending in
the file of learned J.M.F.C., Nimapada on the grounds stated
therein.
3. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, there has been
a compromise between the parties and in that regard, opposite
party No.2, namely, victim wife has filed an affidavit dated 11th
April, 2016 in support of such a settlement and in that view of the
matter, the proceeding which is pending before the court below
should be quashed considering the fact that the matter is resolved.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that admittedly
opposite party No.2 has filed an affidavit by claiming that she is
staying in her in-laws house with her husband happily and having
no objection if the proceeding on the basis of the compromise
affected between her and the petitioners is quashed.
5. In view of the above submissions and having regard to the
affidavit filed by opposite party No.2 claiming compromise and
settlement of the matter and the fact that she has joined her
husband and stated to be residing with him and in-laws, the Court is
of the considered view that no worthy purpose would be served to
have the proceeding continue before the court below, rather, it
should be terminated in the interest of justice and to ensure peace
and stability in the life of the parties. In view of the Supreme Court
Judgment in B.S. Joshi and others Vrs. State of Haryana and another
reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, wherein, the Supreme Court held
that in certain cases where there is a matrimonial or civil litigation
keeping in view of the facts and circumstances each particular case,
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the Court. In the
considered opinion of the Court, the present case is required to be
quashed in view of the compromise between the parties in exercise
of the inherent jurisdiction as opposite party No.2 being the victim
wife having filed an affidavit claiming to be staying with her in-laws
and leading a happy marital life.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed. Consequently, the
criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.413 of 2014 corresponding to
Nimapada P.S. Case No.83 of 2014 pending in the file of learned
J.M.F.C., Nimapada is hereby quashed.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
