Orissa High Court
Dr. Ajit Agrawal And Others vs State Of Odisha And Another on 7 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.333 of 2022
Dr. Ajit Agrawal and others Petitioners
Mr. S. Das, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC
M/s. S. Patra, Advocate for O.P.No.2
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 07.09.2022
No.
07. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the
petitioners for quashing of the criminal proceeding pending before
the court of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack in connection with G.R.
Case No.842 of 2015 which corresponds to Mahila P.S. Case No.50
of 2015 on the grounds stated therein.
3. Perused the FIR i.e. Annexure-1 and a copy of the charge
sheet as at Annexure-2 besides other documents including the order
of cognizance i.e. Annexure-3.
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
there has been a compromise between the parties which is evident
from joint affidavit i.e. Annexure-4 and as per the settlement,
opposite party No.2 has been paid an amount of Rs.18 lac towards
Streedhana through a demand draft dated 2nd September, 2021 of
HDFC Bank,Purnia Branch, Purnia. It is further submitted that
according to the compromise, the parties shall take steps for
withdrawal of all the litigations pending before the judicial forums
which is also mentioned in Annexure-4 and therefore, considering
the aforesaid development, the criminal proceeding pending before
the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack should be quashed in the interest of
justice whereas the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2
does not dispute about the compromise. The Court perused joint
affidavit i.e. Annexure-4 as per which the marriage is stated to have
been dissolved between the parties by a decree in C.P. No.374 of
2018 of the Family Court, Cuttack by judgment dated 5th December,
2019 and whereafter opposite party No.2 has been paid an amount
of Rs.18 lac and also agreed upon that necessary steps would be
taken to withdraw pending litigations. In so far as the offences are
concerned, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3 indicates that the
learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack has taken cognizance of offences under
Sections 498-A, 294, 313, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section
4 of the D.P. Act.
5. Having regard to the fact that the parties have had a
compromise and reached at a settlement which is discernable from
Annexure-4 and keeping in view the settled position of law that
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised as
has been enunciated by the Supreme Court time and again more
prominently in the decision of B.S. Joshi and others Vrs. State of
Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Court is of
the view that it is fit case where the criminal proceeding arising out
Mahila P.S. Case No.50 of 2015 should be quashed in the interest of
justice and also to ensure peace and stability in the lives of the
parties.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed. Consequently, the
criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.842 of 2015 arising out of
Mahila P.S. Case No.50 of 2015 registered under Sections 498-A,
294, 313, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the D.P.
Act pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack is hereby
quashed.
8. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per
rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
