Orissa High Court
Swarnalata Das vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opp. ... on 6 August, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 271 of 2020
Swarnalata Das .... Petitioner
Mr. R.K. Mallick, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. R.B. Dash, Add. P.P
Ms. S. Patra, Advocate for O.P. No.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 06.08.2025
06. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to
set aside the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the learned
J.M.F.C., Hinjilicut, Ganjam in U.C. Case No.11 of 2018
corresponding to Hinjili P.S. Case No.133 of 2017 and G.R.
Case No.109 of 2017 and to allow the Petitioner to
represent through her counsel.
3. While the aforesaid prayer was pending disposal
before this Court, the Petitioner moved a joint affidavit
sworn by the Petitioner and Opposite Party wherein the
Parties have agreed to settle the dispute in connection with
U.C. Case No.11 of 2018 arising out of 1CC Case No.13 of
2017 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Hinjilcut,
Ganjam.
4. By virtue of the order dated 31.07.2025, both the
Parties i.e. the Petitioner namely Swarnalata Das and the
Opposite Party No.2 namely Niranjan Das appeared in
person before this Court.
5. On being enquired, the Petitioner submits that the
matter in dispute has since been compromised between the
Parties and they do not want to proceed further in
connection with any matter standing before any court of
law.
6. Perused the joint affidavit dated 08.07.2025, wherein
at Paragraph No.7, it is agreed by the Parties i.e. the
Opposite Party No.2 do not want to proceed in the case
relating to Hinjili P.S. Case No.133 of 2017 corresponding
to G.R. Case No.109 of 2017 arising out of 1CC Case
No.13 of 2017 turned to U.C. No.11 of 2018 pending
before the learned J.M.F.C., Hinjilicut, Ganjam under
Section 494 IPC. As seen from the aforesaid affidavit, the
MATA No.219 of 2024 has also been disposed of pursuant
to the joint affidavit entered into between the Parties in
compromise filed herein.
5. The background facts of the case are that the
Opposite Party No.2 namely Niranjan Das lodged a
complaint before the learned J.M.F.C., Hinjilicut, Ganjam
against Smt. Swarnalata Das praying the court to take
cognizance of the offence under Section 420/494 IPC
against her. The said complaint was registered as 1CC
No.13 of 2017 and the learned court directed the Police to
investigate into the matter and accordingly, upon
registration of the FIR in connection with Hinjili P.S. Case
No.133 of 2017, the Police registered the case and took up
investigation. The Police, however, submitted the final
report on 31.12.2017 before the learned Magistrate and
accordingly, the Informant i.e. Niranjan Das was issued
with notice enabling him an opportunity to file protest
petition. In absence of the protest petition, the learned
Magistrate, however, took cognizance of the offence under
Section 494 IPC on 30.01.2018 and issued summons to the
Petitioner to appear before the court. The Petitioner instead
of appearing in person moved an application before the
learned Magistrate under Section 205 Cr.P.C to dispense
with her personal appearance and to be represented through
her lawyer. The learned Magistrate, having heard the
Parties declined to grant the aforesaid prayer of the
Petitioner, whereupon, the Petitioner moved in the present
CRLMC and while the matter stood thus, the aforesaid joint
affidavit has been filed by the Parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of B.S.
Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)
4 SCC 675 has held that in matrimonial matter it becomes
duty of the Court to consider the special feature of a case
where the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and
no useful purpose would be served by allowing a criminal
prosecution to continue in the court and while taking into
consideration the special facts should quash the
proceedings. The aforesaid judgment was followed in the
case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another (2008) 9
SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008)
16 SCC 1. However, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
(2010) 15 SCC 118, a two judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court doubted the correctness of these decisions
including one in B.S. Joshi's case (Supra) and the matter
was referred to a three judges Bench, whereupon, the three
judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10
SCC 303 considered the question referred to it and
reiterated the ratio of the judgment in B.S. Joshi's Case
(Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
judgment has held that cases predominantly with civil
flavour particularly offences like transaction or the offences
arising out of matrimony particularly relating to dowry etc.
or the family disputes, where the wrong is basically private
or personal in nature and the parties have settled their
dispute outside the Court, in these category of cases, the
High Court should quash the criminal proceedings, if, the
High Court is of the opinion that as a result of the
compromise between the parties, possibility of conviction
is remote or bleak.
7. The instant case as originally filed by the Opposite
Party No.2, Niranjan Das against the Petitioner is one under
Section 494 IPC, which deals with "Marrying again during
the life time of a husband or wife". Case record reveals that
the Parties are in issues in matrimony and the present
proceeding pending before the learned Magistrate does
emanates there from. The compromise reached between the
duly recognized by this Court in allowing the Parties to
resolve their dispute pending in MATA No.219 of 2024 by
virtue of the order of this Court dated 08.07.2025 on the
basis of the joint affidavit filed herein clearly speaks that
the Parties in matrimony have ended their litigation.
Consequently, no fruitful purpose would be served, if the
Parties are allowed to proceed in the proceeding pending
before the learned J.M.F.C., Hinjilicut, Ganjam.
8. This Court, accordingly, finds it worth to prevent the
abuse of process of law and feels it proper to quash the
proceeding in U.C. No.11 of 2018 pending before the
learned J.M.F.C., Hinjilicut, Ganjam, arising out of Hinjili
P.S. Case No.133 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case
No.109 of 2017, arising out of 1CC Case No.13 of 2017.
9. In the result, the proceeding in U.C. No.11 of 2018
pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Hinjilicut, Ganjam,
arising out of Hinjili P.S. Case No.133 of 2017,
corresponding to G.R. Case No.109 of 2017, arising out of
1CC Case No.13 of 2017 stands quashed.
10. The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Bijay
