Goutam Kumar Sahoo And vs State Of Odisha And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 11052 Ori

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
               CRLMC NO.2763 of 2022

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

 Goutam Kumar Sahoo and     ...               Petitioners
 others
                   -versus-

 State of Odisha and another ...        Opposite Parties

 For Petitioners           : Ms. M. Behera , Advocate

 For Opposite Parties      : Mrs. S.R. Sahoo, ASC
                             [O.P.No.1]
                             Ms. S.S. Behera, Adv.
                             [O.P. No.2]

        CORAM:
                 JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

             DATE OF JUDGMENT:11.09.2023

G. Satapathy, J.

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

petitioners seek to quash the order passed on

10.01.2017 by the learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack

in G.R. Case No.1903 of 2015 arising out of Cuttack

Mahila P.S. Case No.111 of 2015 taking cognizance

of offences and, consequently, the criminal

proceeding arising thereof against the petitioners on

the ground of amicable settlement amongst the

parties.

2. Heard, Ms. Minati Behera, learned counsel for

the petitioners, Ms. Sushree Swagatika Behera,

learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Mrs. S.R. Sahoo,

learned ASC.

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 the petitioner No.1 being duly identified by

his counsel Ms. Minati Behera (Enrl. No.O-75/2002)

and the informant-cum- O.P. No.2 being identified

by her learned counsel Ms. Sushree Swagatika

Behera (Enrl. No.O-307/2021) remain present in the

Court today and they acknowledged that they have

settled the dispute amicably and they are residing

together peacefully and happily with harmony. The

parties produce their original Aadhaar Cards along

with copies being duly attested and identified by

their learned counsels. It appears from the affidavit

sworn in by OP No.2(Monalisa Sahoo) that the

parties are living happily in a common mess and the

DV Misc. Case No. 347 of 2015 as filed by her was

already closed and the matrimonial disputes and

misunderstanding between her in laws and her have

already been settled and she has been staying in her

in laws house with the petitioner happily and

peacefully and she is now blessed with a daughter

through her husband.

4. Law is very well settled that genuine and

honest settlement of matrimonial disputes 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 disputes 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)/406/506/34 of IPC read

with Sections 4/6(A) of D.P. Act which relates to

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

demand of dowry and criminal breach of trust, but

offence U/S.498-A of IPC by itself is not

compoundable in nature, however, such offence 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 female 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 already 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

Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.111 of 2015

corresponding to G.R. Case No.1903 of 2015 of the

Court of learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack is hereby

quashed.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Jr.Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Sep-2023 14:56:22