Orissa High Court
Prasanta Kumar Sethy @ vs State Of Odisha And Another .... Opp. ... on 9 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3916 of 2023
Prasanta Kumar Sethy @ .... Petitioner(s)
Manguli Sethy and others
Mr. N. K. Sethi, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opp. Party(s)
Mr. B. Nayak, AGA
CRLMC No.4134 of 2024
Brahmananda Sethi and .... Petitioner(s)
others
Mr. N. K. Sethi, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opp. Party(s)
Mr. B. Nayak, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 09.04.2025
11. 1. Heard.
2. The petitioners in both the aforementioned cases are the
accused in the F.I.R. dated 01.12.2015 in Khuntuni P.S. Case
No.164 of 2015 registered for alleged commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 498A/323/34 of I.P.C. read with Section
4 of the D.P. Act. After investigation, charge-sheet in the present
case has been filed on 19.07.2016 against the petitioners. The
petitioners in both the cases are accused and the opposite party No.2
is the informant. The dispute is arising out of a matrimonial discord.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although
the charge-sheet was filed way back in the year 2016, but the
charges have not yet been framed. Meanwhile, during the pendency
of the present proceeding, the petitioner No.1 namely Brahmananda
Sethi in CRLMC No.4134 of 2024, who is the husband of the
opposite party No.2 has expired and rest of the petitioners in both
the petitions are the in-laws of the opposite party No.2.
4. Vide order dated 17.01.2024 in CRLMC No.3916 of 2023,
notice was directed to be served on the opposite party No.2. Despite
notice, she has chosen not to appear in the Court. Therefore, on
23.10.2024, the following order was passed:-
"1. Notice was issued to the opposite party No.2 vide
order dated 17.01.2024. After several attempts, notice
could not be served on opposite party No.2. Therefore, on
10.04.2024, the I.I.C., Khuntuni P.S. was directed to serve
the notice on opposite party No.2 and he was also directed
to be present in the Court. On 08.10.2024, the I.I.C.,
Khuntuni P.S. appeared before this Court through Virtual
Mode and informed that he has served the opposite party
No.2 and the opposite party No.2 has requested him to
seek an adjournment. Accordingly, the matter was
adjourned for today with a peremptory order that the
matter shall not be adjourned further.
2. None appears for the opposite party No.2 when the
matter is called.
3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the present petition is filed by the in-laws and
there are other accused persons namely the husband of the
opposite party No.2 and other in-laws those who have
been arrayed as accused. Therefore, he seeks one week
time to file fresh petition seeking quashing of the criminal
prosecution initiated against them by the opposite party
No.2.
4. List this matter on 06.11.2024."
Despite the aforementioned order, none has appeared for the
opposite party No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me to the
Annexure-3 (Faisalanama) and submits that the parties have settled
their dispute. Pursuant to the settlement terms, the husband of the
opposite party No.2 had moved an application under Section 13(1)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage.
Due to absence of the opposite party No.2, the application has been
disposed of by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil
Proceeding No.470 of 2013 vide its order dated 18.01.2018
dissolving the marriage by an ex-parte decree. The ex-parte decree
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack has attained
finality as the opposite party No.2 has not challenged the same.
The present petitioners have assailed the entire criminal
prosecution initiated by the opposite party No.2 on the ground that
the matter has already been settled and the learned Judge, Family
Court, Cuttack has dissolved the marriage ex-parte, which has not
been challenged by the opposite party No.2. On repeated attempts,
although the opposite party No.2 has been served but she chose not
to appear in the Court. Besides that the petitioners also submits that
the F.I.R. was registered way back in the year 2015 and
subsequently in the year 2016, the charge-sheet has been filed,
however, even charges have not yet been framed in the present
case. The petitioners seek indulgence of this Court for quashing of
the entire proceeding on all the grounds as mentioned above.
6. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for
the State submits that the dispute is arising out of a matrimonial
discord. The development which has unfolded in the present case is
peculiar and the fact remains that the case is pending since 2015
without any progress, therefore, there is no legal impediment in
giving indulgence to the present petitioners.
7. 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 petitioners to the rigors of
the trial would be a futile exercise. Therefore, the petition deserves
merit.
8. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with
C.T. Case No.512 of 2015 arising out of Khuntuni P.S. Case
No.164 of 2015 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.,
Athagarh and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua
the petitioners are quashed.
9. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Apr-2025 17:14:02
