Orissa High Court
Sasmita Maharana & Others vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 2 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.815 of 2025
Sasmita Maharana & others .... Petitioners
Mr. Deepankar
Panigrahy,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Mr.Bibekananda
Nayak, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 02.04.2025
02.
1.
Heard.
2. At the instance of the petitioner No.1, the F.I.R. in
connection with Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No.14 of
2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.378 of 2019 came
to be registered against the petitioners Nos.2 to 4 for
the alleged commission of offences punishable under
Sections 498-A/313/323/506 of the IPC r/w Section 4
of the D.P. Act, pending in the Court of learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge
(Women's Court), Jeypore.
3. The allegation against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are
that the petitioner No.1 reported at the P.S. alleging
that she got married to the petitioner No.2 of Village
Ichhapur on 01.05.2018 at Jagannath Temple,
Koraput. After their marriage, the petitioner No.1
stayed at her in-laws house for one month. She also
stayed at Raipur from 01.05.2018 to 12.05.2018. In
the meantime, her husband took her to a private clinic
at Raipur and immunized three injections to her for
which she became unconscious. When she regained
her sense, she came to know that her husband got her
miscarriage of pregnancy. The petitioner No.2
threatened her with dire consequence, if she discloses
the fact of her miscarriage before anyone in her family.
Hence, the F.I.R.
4. The dispute is arising out of a matrimonial discord.
The present petition has been filed jointly by the
informant and the accused persons seeking quashing
of the entire criminal prosecution on the ground of
settlement between the parties.
5. After the investigation, the charge sheet has
already been filed in the present case on 31.08.2019
and the trial is at an ascent stage. At this juncture,
the parties have entered into the settlement.
6. The petitioners have entered into an agreement
which has been placed on record as Annexure-4 to the
petition They have inter alia stated in the joint
agreement as under:
"AND WHEREAS, the 1st Party Member is the legally
married wife of the 2nd Party No.1. Both the parties are
Hindu by religion and Maharana by Caste. Their was
solemnized on 01.05.2018 as per their caste and
custom in presence of their Badei (Maharana) Samaj at
Jagannath Temple Koraput. Both of them were leading
happy conjugal life.
That, the 2nd Party No. 2 & 3 are the mother and
brother of the 2nd Party No.1 respectively. Due to some
misunderstanding between the 1st Party and 2nd Party
member relating to some small family matter, the 1st
Party Member lodged an FIR before the Jeypore Mahila
P.S. and accordingly a case was registered against the
2nd party No.1 vide FIR No.0014 dtd. 22.04.2019 U/s.
498-A, 313, 323, 506 of IPC and 4 DP Act, 1961. The
said case was registered before the Court of Ld. Civil
Judge (Sr. Div)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge (Women's
Court), Jeypore as GR Case No.378 of 2019. In the
said case police submitted charge sheet against the 2nd
Party Members for the offence U/s. 498-A/323/506 of
IPC R.W. Sec 4 D.P. Act & 67/67-A of I.T. Act and the
said Hon'ble Court on 03.08.2019 took cognizance of
the said offences.
That in the meanwhile with the intervention and
advice of the well-wishers relatives of both the parties
and Maharana Samaj, both the parties had amicably
resolved their dispute and are leading further conjugal
life happily and residing together. At this juncture both
the parties are not willing to proceed with the case
which is pending before the Court of Ld. Court of Civil
Judge (Sr. Div)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge (Women's
Court), Jeypore. Since, the offence u/s. 498-A IPC is
not compoundable, the 1st party is not able to file any
compromise petition before the Ld. Court below. On the
other hand, they will pray before the Honourable High
Court of Odisha to allow them to compromise the case."
7. The petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are present in the Court
today through video conferencing mode. They have
filed the photocopies of their self-attested Aadhaar
Cards to establish their identity, which have already
been filed in the Court. The petitioner Nos.3 & 4 are
the mother-in-law and the father-in-law. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that they may be
excused for the non-appearance in the court in view of
their ill health. He further submits that he has filed
Vakalatnama for the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 as well,
hence their presence may be accepted through
counsel.
8. On the query from the Court, the petitioner No.1
submits that, she has already resumed her marital life
with the petitioner No.2 and she has no further
grievance against either the husband or the in-laws.
Therefore, she does not want to proceed against the
petitioners Nos.2 to 4 anymore. Hence, she joins
hands with the other petitioners seeking quashing of
the entire criminal prosecution.
9. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the opposite party-State
submits that since the dispute is arising out of a
matrimonial discord and the parties have settled their
dispute and they have also filed the agreement to that
effect, there is no legal impediment in quashing the
F.I.R.
10. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have
settled their dispute and they have also filed the
agreement in that regard, I am inclined to allow the
present petition. In the fact scenario of the present
case, subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of trial is
destined to be a futile exercise. The present case is
squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303;
B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana &
another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & another v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others,
reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition
deserves merit.
11. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions
made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Jeypore
Mahila P.S. Case No.14 of 2019 corresponding to G.R.
Case No.378 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Assistant Sessions
Judge (Women's Court), Jeypore and the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the
petitioners are quashed.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 03-Apr-2025 09:53:37
