Orissa High Court
Shyam Sundar Behera And vs Pragyn Priyadarshini Behera .... ... on 13 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2939 of 2022
Shyam Sundar Behera and .... Petitioner(s)
another
Mr. R. D. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Pragyn Priyadarshini Behera .... Opposite Party(s)
and another
Ms. S. Moharana, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
13.02.2025
CRLMC No.2939 of 2022 & I.A. No.527 of 2025
Order No.
11. 1. Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party, the F.I.R. dated
22.07.2019 in UPD, Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.81 of 2019
came to be registered against the petitioners for the alleged
commission of the offences under Sections 498-
A/307/323/341/294/354/354-A/354-B/506/34 of I.P.C. read with
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On the ground of
settlement, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the F.I.R and
consequential proceedings.
3. The allegation against the petitioners in the F.I.R. is that,
on 06.07.2018, the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner
No.1 and the opposite party as per Hindu rites and customs. After
marriage, they lived peacefully as husband and wife. It is alleged
that the opposite party has been tortured by her husband and in-laws
and they demanded dowry from her. It is also alleged that due to
difference of opinion and misunderstanding, the dispute arose
between them, for which, the petitioner No.1 and opposite party
have been living separately since 24.01.2019. Hence, this case.
4. The petitioner No.1 is present in the Court and being
represented and identified by his counsel. He has also filed self-
attested copy of his Aadhaar Card to establish his identity, which is
taken on record. However, petitioner No.2 is not present in Court.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners has moved an
application on behalf of petitioner No.2 seeking exemption from her
personal appearance before this Court today, which is taken on
record. For the reason stated in the application, the same is allowed
and the personal appearance of petitioner No.2 is dispensed with.
5. The matter was taken up for hearing on 20.08.2024 and
notice was issued to the opposite party. Despite sufficient notice,
she did not appear before the Court. Hence, on 03.09.2024, the
I.I.C., Mahila P.S., Bhubaneswar was directed to serve the copy of
the petition on opposite party.
6. Ms. Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
the State submits that the I.I.C., Mahila P.S., Bhubaneswar has
already served the copy on opposite party.
7. Despite service in two different modes, the opposite party
has not appeared before this Court. Therefore, this Court is
proceeding with the matter in her absence.
8. It is borne out from the record that the parties have settled
their dispute and on the basis of their settlement terms, the marriage
between the petitioner No.1 and opposite party has been dissolved
by the learned Family Judge, Puri vide its judgment dated
19.08.2022 in C.P. No.183 of 2020. Pursuant to the afore-referred
judgment of the learned Family Judge, Puri, it reveals that the
opposite party has not only accepted the permanent alimony of
Rs.4,00,000/- as has been decided amongst them but also agreed to
cooperate with the petitioner No.1 for termination of the criminal
prosecution initiated by her. This aspect of the matter could be
found from the evidence of the parties, which reads as under:-
"6. That, taking impossibility of reunion into account,
we both the spouse decided to dissolved the marriage by
mutual consent in order to release ourselves from
bondage of marriage and accordingly we both have filed
the present application before this Hon'ble Court. It is
also decided by and between we both the parties that, we
will get the aforesaid criminal case filed by the
Petitioner No.2 (two) against me disposed of in view of
such settlement between us from the Hon'ble Court of
S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar."
9. Since the opposite party has already given consent for
dissolution of marriage, which culminated into the judgment dated
19.08.2022 passed by the learned Family Judge, Puri in C.P.
No.183 of 2020 and she has already received the permanent
alimony, it is obvious that she is not interested to participate in the
proceeding. That perhaps the reason, despite service, she has not
appeared in this proceeding.
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 petitioners to the rigors of
the trial would be a futile exercise. Therefore, the petition deserves
merit.
11. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with
criminal Trial Case No.156 of 2022 arising out of UPD
Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.81 of 2019 corresponding to
C.T. Case No.3193 of 2019 pending in the Court of the learned
District & Sessions Judge, Khordha, Bhubaneswar and the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are
quashed.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 14-Feb-2025 10:48:04
