Orissa High Court
Mahammad [email protected] Md. Maihfuze vs State Of Odisha And Another on 17 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 536 of 2022
Mahammad [email protected] Md. Maihfuze .... Petitioners
Alam and others
Mr. Durga Prasad Dhal, Sr. Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.K. Mishra, ASC, OP No.1
None for OP No.2
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
17.10.2022
Order No.
04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the
petitioners praying for quashing of the impugned order of
cognizance under Annexure-2 whereby learned S.D.J.M., Sadar,
Cuttack in G.R. Case No.596 of 2012 arising out of Cuttack Mahila
P.S. Case No.69 of 2012 has taken cognizance of the offences undr
Sections 498-A/323/294/506/34 IPC read with 4 of D.P. Act against
the petitioners on the grounds that there has been a compromise
and dissolution of marriage between the parties, namely, petitioner
No.1 and opposite party No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that
petitioner No.1 and opposite party No.2 have resolved their dispute
with the intervention of the well wishers and local gentries and
consequent of which, opposite party No.2 has received permanent
alimony. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the criminal proceeding initiated against the
petitioners in G.R. Case No.596 of 2012 should be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that
the dispute between the petitioner No.1 and opposite party No.2
have been amicably settled on compromise and the parties submits
that there has been dissolution of marriage between the parties
therefore no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the
continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioners. Referring
to an affidavit sworn by opposite party No.2 whereby both the
parties have reached at a compromise. The Court perused the same.
From the affidavit at Flag-B it is submitted that petitioner No.1 and
opposite party No.2 have no dispute left between them as they
settled the matter out of the Court and opposite party No.2
received permanent alimony pursuant to such dissolution.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 with reference
to the copy of the judgment dated 16th April, 2022 passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.842 of 2021
dissolved the marriage between the parties on mutual consent. The
Court perused the judgment of the family Court and finds that the
parties have obtained a decree of divorce on mutual consent on
payment of Rs.3,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and
Rs.2,00,000/- towards maintenance, education and marriage of
their daughter, who is in the custody of opposite party No.2.
6. The Court is aware of the settled position of law regarding
termination of proceedings vis-à-vis the parties with civil and
matrimonial disputes where the Supreme Court in the case of B.S.
Joshi and others Vrs. State of Haryana & Another (2003) 4 SCC 675
held that such jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court
taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case to meet
the ends of justice. Having said so, the Court is of the view that it is
a fit case where inherent jurisdiction should be exercised.
Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed. the criminal
proceeding in G.R. Case 596 of 2012 arising out of Cuttack Mahila
P.S. Case No.69 of 2012 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M.(S),
Cuttack shall hereby quashed.
8. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
U.K. Sahoo
