Orissa High Court
Baibhav Mishra And Others vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 8 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3606 of 2024
Baibhav Mishra and others .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. P. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. S. J. Mohanty, ASC
Mr. S. S. Alli, Advocate for O.P.2
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
08.11.2024
Order No.
02. 1. Heard.
2. At the instance of opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. dated
28.07.2017 in UPD, Bhubaneswar Capital P.S. Case No.304 of
2017 for the offences under Sections 498-A/506/294/323/34 of
I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act came to be registered
against the petitioners.
3. The allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is that the
marriage was solemnized between the petitioner No.1 and the
opposite party No.2 on 20.01.2017 and they lived and cohabited
together as a husband and wife but there was no issue from the said
wedlock. It is also alleged that the petitioner No1 is a habitual
drunker. The petitioner No.1 and his family members have
demanded money from the complainant for every purpose and also
demanded more dowry from her. They have also threatened the
informant/opposite party No.2 that if she will not bring dowry they
will kill her. Hence, the F.I.R.
4. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the
present case on 23.06.2018 for the alleged offences under Sections
498A/506/323/294/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act
against the petitioners. Before the trial commenced in the present
case, the parties have arrived at a settlement.
5. Pursuant to the settlement agreement dated 17.04.2023, the
petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashment of the
entire criminal prosecution initiated against them by the opposite
party No.2. The petitioner No.1 and the opposite party No.2 have
also applied for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(B)(1) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Principal Judge, Family Court,
Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, Delhi vide order dated 20.05.2023
allowed the first motion under Section 13-B(1) of the H.M. Act and
subsequently on 22.09.2023, the second motion under Section 13-
B(2) of the H.M. Act has also been allowed by the said Court.
6. The petitioners and the opposite party No.2 are present in
the Court through Virtual Mode and being represented and
identified by their respective counsels. They have also filed self-
attested copies of their Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity,
which are taken on record.
7. The petitioner No.1 has filed an affidavit dated 08.11.2024
inter alia stating as under:-
<2. That the Petitioner No.1 and the Opposite
Party No.2, with the help of the mediation, have
settled all their disputes through a Settlement
Agreement dated 17.04.2023 arrived at Delhi
Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
3. That as per the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, it was agreed that the Petitioner No.1
shall pay a total sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees
Twelve Lakhs Only) to the Opposite Party No.2
towards full and final settlement of all claims
against Stridhan, permanent alimony, past,
present and future maintenance arising out of the
marital relationship between the parties. The said
amount was to be paid in three installments by
way of Demand Draft/Pay Order.
4. That pursuant to the settlement, the Petitioner
No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2 jointly filed a
petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by mutual
consent before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Shahdara Karkardooma, Delhi, registered as
HMA No.983 of 2023.
5. That at the time of passing of the first motion
order, the Petitioner No.1 paid a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) to the
Opposite Party No.2 vide Demand Draft dated
18.05.2023.
6. That at the time of passing of the second
motion order, the Petitioner No.1 paid a further
sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only)
to the Opposite Party No.2 vide Demand Draft
dated 21.09.2023.
7. That in furthermore of the settlement
agreement dated 17.04.2023 between the parties,
the Petitioner No.1 has duly paid the remaining
amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) to
the Opposite Party No.2 vide Demand Draft dated
01.02.2024 towards full and final settlement of all
claims pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and
the acknowledgement of the same has been
received on 24.04.2024.
The photocopy of the said Demand Draft
dated 01.02.2024 along with proof of receipt
dated 24.04.2024 is annexed herewith and marked
as Annexure-8.
The photocopy of the acknowledgement
dated 24.04.2024 signed by the Opposite Party
No.2 duly receiving the Demand Draft dated
01.02.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure-9.
8. That with this payment, the entire settlement
amount of Rs.12,00,000/- as agreed between the
parties stands paid in full by the Petitioner No.1 to
the Opposite Party No.2. No claims or disputes
survive in this regard.
9. That continuance of the criminal proceedings
would therefore serve no fruitful purpose and
would only result in unnecessary harassment of
the petitioners.=
8. On the query from the Court, the opposite party
No.2/informant, who is present in the Court through Virtual Mode
has stated that to her satisfaction, she has received the entire
settlement amount towards the permanent alimony and she does not
have any issue against the petitioners. In view of the settlement
terms, she also joins with the petitioner making a prayer for
quashment of the entire criminal prosecution initiated by her against
the petitioners.
9. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State submits that the dispute is essentially arising out a
matrimonial discord. The parties have settled their dispute. In terms
of the settlement, the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and
opposite party No.2 has already been dissolved by the Court of the
competent jurisdiction. Hence, there is no legal impediment in
quashing the entire criminal prosecution.
10. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have settled
their dispute and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi & others vs.
State of Haryana & another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, I am of
the considered view that subjecting the petitioner to trial would be a
futile exercise. Therefore, the petition deserves merit.
11. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in UPD,
Bhubaneswar Capital P.S. Case No.304 of 2017 corresponding to
C.T. Case No.3244 of 2017 pending in the Court of the learned
S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Location: High Court of Orissa
