Bimala Panda & Another vs State Of Orissa And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1373 Ori

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

              CRLMC NO.3778 of 2017

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

 Bimala Panda & another      ...              Petitioners
                    -versus-

 State of Orissa and another     ...   Opposite Parties


 For Petitioners         : Mr. A.K.Swain-1 ,
                           Advocate


 For Opposite Parties    : Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA
                           [O.P.No.1]
                           Mr. G.K.Nanda, Adv.
                           [O.P. No.2]

        CORAM:
                 JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

           DATE OF JUDGMENT :09.02.2023


G. Satapathy, J.

1. An application U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the

petitioners mother-in-law and sister-in-law seek to

quash the order passed on 31.07.2017 by the

learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla in G.R. Case No. 95 of

2017 taking cognizance of offences and

consequently the criminal proceeding arising thereof

on the ground of amicable settlement amongst the

parties.

2. Heard Mr.Ashok Kumar Swain-1, learned

counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gopal Krushna

Nanda, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and

Mr.S.S.Pradhan, learned AGA.

3. Since the matter pertains to compromise of

matrimonial disputes amongst the petitioners and

O.P. No.2, this Court considers it appropriate not to

narrate the entire facts, but limits itself to reflect the

submissions advanced by the parties. At the

inception, this Court considers it proper to mention

here that a joint affidavit has been filed by the

petitioners and O.P. No.2 being duly identified by

their respective counsels and accordingly, the

informant O.P. No.2 being identified by her learned

counsel Gopal Krushna Nanda remains present in the

Court and acknowledges that they have settled the

dispute amicably and they are residing peacefully

and happily with harmony and such facts are duly

acknowledged by petitioners being identified by their

learned counsel Mr. Ashok Kumar Swain-1. The

parties produce their original Adhar Cards along with

copies being duly attested by the learned counsels

for the respective parties. It appears from the

affidavit sworn in by the parties that the parties are

living happily in a common mess.

4. Law is very well settled that genuine and

honest settlement of matrimonial dispute between

the wife and her in laws is always considered to be

in the interest of family, society and justice. In the

above facts and circumstance, this Court considers it

apposite to refer to the following observations made

at Paragraph-44 by the Apex Court in K. Srinivas

Rao Vrs. D.A. Deepa; (2013) 5 SCC 226, 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 the dispute and stay together, but in either case

the settlement of the parties would endorse the

quashing of complaint.

5. In this case the offences alleged against the

petitioners are U/Ss.498-(A)/294/323/506 of IPC

read with Section 4 of D.P. Act which relates to

torture of wife by the husband and her in-laws for

demand of dowry, but offence U/S.498-A/294 of IPC

by themselves are not compoundable in nature,

however, such offences can be quashed in exercise

of inherent power of this Court on the grounds of

amicable settlement between the parties in view of

the law laid down in B.S. Joshi v. State of

Haryana; 2003 (4) SCC 675, wherein the apex

Court has observed that:

"non exercise of inherent power to quash the proceeding to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier and

that would be against the object of Section 498-A."

6. In addition, in Gian Singh v. State of

Punjab and another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, the

apex Court in Paragraph-57 has been pleased to

hold as under:

"But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavor stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim."

7. Social justice having adorned the preamble is

the face of our sacred Constitution and one of the

cherished objects of such social justice is unity and

preservation of family life. In this case when the

informant has come forward to preserve her family

life with the petitioners, rather than getting

separated from them, it would be travesty of justice,

if she is not allowed to preserve her family to lead a

happy conjugal life with her husband and petitioners

along with her child. In such situation, it becomes

the duty of the Court to encourage genuine

settlement of matrimonial dispute. Besides, it would

be extremely harsh and disgraceful to a woman who

had already settled the dispute with her in-laws

being blessed with one child out of her wedlock with

her husband and continuing to stay happily.

8. Indisputably, CHAPTER-XX-A "OF CRUELTY

BY HUSBAND OR RELATIVES OF HUSBAND"

containing the offence U/S.498-A of the IPC was

introduced by way of Criminal Law (Second

Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act No. 46 of 1983) S.2

with effect from 25.12.1983 to prevent torture to a

women by her husband or by relatives of her

husband by way of punishment to erring husband

and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to

coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful

demands of dowry but, it was never the intention of

legislature to prevent genuine settlement by taking a

hyper technical view that the offence is not

compoundable which would be counterproductive

and against the interest of women.

9. In view of the facts discussed above and the

observations made in K. Srinivas Rao (supra),

B.S. Joshi(supra) and Gian Singh(supra)

especially when both the sides in the form of

petitioners and O.P.No.2 have settled their dispute

amongst themselves and keeping in view the parties

entering into a compromise in this case and living

happily in a common mess, this Court considers that

in such circumstances, allowing the criminal

proceeding to continue against the petitioners is

nothing, but an abuse of process of Court and to

secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceeding

against the petitioners as well as the order taking

cognizance of offences by the impugned order may

be required to be quashed.

10. In the result, the CRLMC is allowed, but in the

circumstance there is no order as to cost. As a

logical sequitur, the order taking cognizance

together with criminal proceeding arising out of

Daspalla P.S. Case No.73 of 2017 corresponding to

G.R. Case No.95 of 2017 of the Court of learned

J.M.F.C., Daspalla is hereby quashed.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9th of February, 2023/kishore