Orissa High Court

Amulya Kumar Sahoo And vs State Of Odisha And Another on 11 April, 2023

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                CRLMC NO.1423 of 2019

   (In the matter of application under Section 482 of the
   Criminal Procedure Code, 1973).

   Amulya Kumar Sahoo and     ...               Petitioners
   Others
                     -versus-

   State of Odisha and Another ...        Opposite Parties


   For Petitioners          : Mr. D.K. Sahoo, Advocate


   For Opposite Parties     : Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, AGA
                              [O.P.No.1]
                              Mr. A. Dash, Advocate
                              [O.P. No.2]

        CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

         DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT :11.04.2023


G. Satapathy, J.

1. The petitioners seeking the indulgence of this

Court to invoke inherent power U/S.482 of Cr.P.C.

pray to quash the entire criminal proceeding in Tigiria

P.S. Case No.107 of 2009 corresponding to C.T. Case

No.524 of 2009 pending in the file of the learned

J.M.F.C., Tigiria on the grounds of amicable

settlement of matrimonial dispute between husband-

cum-petitioner No.1 and his family members with

wife-cum-O.P.No.2.

2. Since the dispute between the parties having

already stated to be settled, it would be unnecessary

to reproduce the entire set of facts here, but the

gist/summary of facts are extracted hereinafter for

better appreciation in the matter and in narrating the

facts, it appears that the petitioner No.1 and

O.P.No.2 were admittedly the husband and wife and

their marriage was solemnized on 30.06.2006 in

terms of Hindu Rights and Custom, but subsequently,

when dissension arose between them, O.P.No.2

lodged a FIR against the petitioners for subjecting her

to torture and cruelty for demand of additional dowry

of cash of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh),

although dowry articles like household articles, home

appliances, gold ornaments and cash of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) were presented to

the groom at the time of marriage, but for non-

fulfillment of additional dowry, the petitioners started

torturing O.P.No.2. Accordingly, on the FIR of

O.P.No.2, Tigiria P.S. Case No.107 of 2009 was

registered and the matter was investigated into

resulting submission of charge-sheet against the

petitioners leading to taking cognizance of offences

by the learned S.D.J.M., Athgarh by the impugned

order. While the matter stood thus, the matter was

amicably settled and the marriage between the

petitioner No.1 and O.P.No.2 was annulled by a

decree of divorce passed by learned Judge, Family

Court, Cuttack on 17.05.2014 in C.P. No.394 of 2010,

which was challenged before this Court in MATA

No.66 of 2014 along with for non-payment of

permanent alimony and this Court by way of an order

passed on 25.03.2019 granted Rs.5,00,000/- as

permanent alimony to O.P.No.2 to be paid by

petitioner No.1 within a period of four months w.e.f.

date of order, while confirming the decree of divorce

in the aforesaid MATA proceeding. Hence, this CRLMC

for quashing the criminal proceeding on the ground of

compromise.

3. In the course of hearing the CRLMC on

20.03.2023, Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. J.R. Deo, learned Counsel for the

O.P.No.2 had jointly submitted in presence of

petitioner No.1 and O.P.No.2 that the matter has

already been amicably settled between the parties

and their marriage had already been annulled by a

decree of divorce of competent Court U/S.13 of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 and, thereby, the parties having

settled their differences and living peacefully and

separately with harmony, the criminal proceeding

against the petitioners is nothing, but an abuse of

process of Court.

On reiterating the aforesaid submissions today,

learned counsels for petitioners and O.P.No.2 pray to

quash the entire criminal proceeding instituted

against the petitioners. In reply, Mr. P.K. Pattnaik,

learned AGA prefers to formally oppose the prayer of

the petitioners and O.P.No.2.

A certified copy of the order dated 25.03.2019

passed by this Court in MATA No.66 of 2014 has been

produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners

today to evidence the decree of divorce between the

husband and wife and the same be kept on record.

4. There appears hardly any dispute about the

relationship between the parties and it is also never

disputed by O.P.No.2 that her marriage with

petitioner No.1 was annulled by a decree of divorce

passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in

C.P. No.394 of 2010. Besides, O.P.No.2 being

identified by her learned counsel Mr. J.R. Deo was

personally present on 20.03.2023 and she had

submitted in the Court that she does not want to

proceed against the petitioners in this case and she

has already settled the dispute. She also

acknowledged to have filed an affidavit stating

therein to have no objection if the criminal

proceeding in C.T. Case No.524 of 2009 is quashed.

On being asked, O.P.No.2 had expressed her

satisfaction over the compromise with the petitioners

in the open Court. Similarly, petitioner No.1 being

identified by his learned counsel Mr. D.K. Sahoo, had

submitted in the Court that the matter has already

been amicably settled with O.P.No.2 and he has

already paid the permanent alimony to O.P.No.2 and,

accordingly, he and O.P.No.2 are residing separately

and peacefully in harmony with their respective

family.

5. In the above facts and circumstance, this Court

considers it apposite to refer to the following

observation of the Apex Court in K. Srinivas Rao

Vrs. D.A. Deepa; (2013) 5 SCC 226, at Paragraph-

44 which is extracted as under:-

"We, therefore, feel that though offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is not compoundable, in appropriate cases if the parties are willing and if it appears to the criminal court that there exist elements of settlement, it should direct the parties to explore the possibility of settlement through mediation. This is, obviously, not to dilute the rigour, efficacy and purport of Section 498-A IPC, but to locate cases where the matrimonial dispute can be nipped in bud in an equitable manner. The Judges, with their expertise, must ensure that this exercise does not lead to the erring spouse using mediation process to get out of clutches of the law. During mediation, the parties can either to part company on mutually agreed terms or they may decide to patch up and stay together. In either case for the settlement to come through, the complaint will have to be quashed. In that event, they can approach the High Court and get the complaint quashed. If, however, they choose not to settle, they can proceed with the complaint. In this exercise, there is no loss to anyone. If there is settlement, the parties will be saved from the trials and tribulations of a criminal case and that will reduce the burden on the courts which will be in the larger public interest. Obviously, the High Court will quash the complaint only if after considering all circumstances it finds the settlement to be equitable and genuine. Such a course, in our opinion, will be beneficial to those who genuinely want to accord a quietus to their matrimonial disputes."

A plain reading of the above observation of the

Apex Court, it unambiguously appears that the

parties can either decide to part company on

mutually agreed terms or they may decide to patch

up and stay together, but in either case the

settlement of the parties would endorse the quashing

of complaint.

6. In view of the facts discussed above and the

observation made in K. Srinivas Rao (supra),

especially when both the petitioner No.1 and

O.P.No.2 has already settled their dispute amongst

themselves after obtaining a decree of divorce and