Orissa High Court
Sarat Kumar Das And Anr vs State Of Orissa And Anr on 28 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2345 of 2021
Sarat Kumar Das and Anr. .... Petitioners
Mr. Sujit Kumar Biswal, Adv.
-versus-
State of Orissa and Anr. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Sibani Shankar Pradhan, AGA
(for O.P. No.1)
Mr. Samarendra Bahadur, Adv.
On behalf of Mr. Subash Ch. Sahoo, Adv.
(for O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 28.01.2022
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Sibani Shankar Pradhan, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State/ opposite party no.2 and Mr.
Samarendra Bahadur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Mr. Subash Ch. Sahoo, learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2.
3. In this CRLMC, the petitioners have made a prayer to quash
the criminal proceeding initiated against them in G.R. Case
No.476 of 2006, arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.21
of 2006, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack on
the ground of compromise.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite
party no.2 had filed Civil Proceeding No.310 of 2006 under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of
// 2 //
conjugal rights and petitioner no.1 had filed Civil Proceeding
No.260 of 2008 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 for dissolving the marriage solemnized between him
and the opposite party no.2 on 22.05.1998 by a decree of
divorce before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.
Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack vide the common
judgment and order dated 15.07.2021 dismissed the Civil
Proceeding No.310 of 2006 filed by the present opposite party
no.2 and allowed the Civil Proceeding No.260 of 2008 filed by
the present petitioner no.1 against the opposite party no.2,
taking into account the joint compromise petition marked as
Ext.7 in the impugned judgment and the affidavit filed in
W.P.(C) No.7121 of 2013 before this Court and, accordingly,
the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party
no.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the
opposite party no.2 has filed an affidavit stating therein the
aforesaid facts. In the said affidavit it has further been stated by
the opposite party no.2 that she has received a sum of
Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) towards permanent
alimony and she does not have any objection, if the proceeding
in G.R. Case No.476 of 2006, arising out of Cuttack Mahila
P.S. Case No.21 of 2006 pending in the court of the learned
J.M.F.C., Cuttack is quashed on the ground of compromise.
6. Keeping in view the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vrs. State of
// 3 //
Haryana1, this Court is of the view that considering the
compromise entered into between the parties, there is no need
to proceed with the criminal trial, as the only possible outcome
is of acquittal of the petitioners. There is remote and bleak
possibility of conviction of the petitioners in this case. Hence,
to prevent the abuse of process of law, the criminal trial against
the petitioners is required to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed. The criminal
proceeding in G.R. Case No.476 of 2006, arising out of Cuttack
Mahila P.S. Case No.21 of 2006, pending in the court of
learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack is hereby quashed. The Affidavit
filed by the opposite party no.2 shall form a part of the records.
8. The CRLMC is disposed of, accordingly.
9. As the restrictions due to resurgence of Covid-19 are
continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a
printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at
par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the Advocate
concerned with his/her seal, in the manner prescribed vide
Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020 and Court's
Office Order dated 7th January, 2022.
( S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
BJ
(2003) 4 SCC 675
