Orissa High Court
Hemant Singh @ Hemanta vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opp. ... on 17 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.359 of 2025
Hemant Singh @ Hemanta .... Petitioner
Kumar Singh Mr. Soubhagya
Kumar Dash,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr.S.J.Mohanty
ASC and Mr.
Soumya Kanta
Tripathy,
Advocate for
O.P. No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 17.02.2025
01.
1.
Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the
F.I.R. in connection with Udala P.S. Case No.97 of
2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No.286 of 2014 came
to be registered against the petitioner for the alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections
498-A/294/506/34 of the IPC r/w Section 4 of the
D.P. Act, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M.,
Udala.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the
petitioner had married to the opposite party No.2.
After few days of their marriage, the petitioner and his
family members started torturing the opposite party
No.2 demanding more dowry. When the family of the
opposite party No.2 could not fulfill the demand of
more dowry, the family members of the petitioner
tortured the opposite party No.2 both physically and
mentally. Hence, the F.I.R.
4. After the investigation, the charge sheet has been
filed in the present case on 27.11.2014 for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.
5. The learned S.D.J.M., Udala vide order dated
06.12.2023 has also taken the cognizance of the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC
against the petitioner. In para-5 of the petition, the
petitioner has very categorically contended that
despite the fact that the cognizance of the offence has
been taken in the year 2014, but the charge has not
yet been framed in the present case.
6. When the matter stood thus, the parties have
settled their dispute. On the basis of the terms of
settlement, the present petition has been filed by the
petitioner.
7. Mr. Soumya Kanta Tripathy, Advocate enters
appearance on behalf of the opposite party No.2 and
files Vakalatnama in the Court today. The same be
kept on record.
8. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 are
present in the Court today being represented by their
respective counsels and identified by them. They have
also filed the photocopies of their self-attested Aadhaar
Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on
record.
9. The opposite party No.2 has also filed a joint
affidavit dated 17.02.2025, inter alia, stating as under:
"2. That a dispute has arisen between us due to
matrimonial discord, leading to the registration of
Udala P.S. Case No.97 of 2014 under Sections 498-
A/294/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
which resulted in G.R. Case No.286 of 2014 before
the learned SDJM, Udala. The police submitted the
charge sheet only U/s. 498-A IPC against the
petitioner.
3. That we have amicably settled all our disputes
through the intervention of our families, well-
wishers, and respected community elders.
4. That we have arrived at a mutual compromise,
and there are no further grievances between us. We
undertake not to pursue any claims, allegations, or
disputes against each other in the future.
5. That in view of the settlement, the continuation of
the proceedings in G.R. Case No.286 of 2014 would
be an abuse of the process of law, and no fruitful
purpose would be served by prosecuting the case
any further.
6. That in the interest of justice, we jointly pray
before this Hon'ble Court to quash the entire
proceedings in G.R. Case No.286 of 2014 pending
before the learned SDJM, Udala.
7. That both the parties swear this affidavit without
any coercion, undue influence and being pressurized
by anybody to file it before the Hon'ble High Court
for passing appropriate orders on the application of
petitioners for the interest of justice and convenience
of parties.
8. That the facts stated above are all true to the best
of our knowledge and belief and are based on record
and we further declare that we have not suppressed
any material fact and the affidavit is made in our
free mind and our own volition."
10. On the query from the Court, the opposite party
No.2, who is present in the Court today, submits that,
she has already settled the dispute with the petitioner
and she does not want to proceed against the
petitioner any more.
11. Mrs. Sarita Maharana, learned Additional
Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party
No.1-State submits that, the dispute is essentially
arises out of a matrimonial discord leading to
registration of the F.I.R. and the parties have settled
their dispute. The opposite party No.2, the informant
is present in the Court, has reiterated her stand that,
she has settled her dispute with the petitioner No.1
and she has also filed the affidavit before this Court to
that effect. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in
quashing the F.I.R.
12. Regard being had to the submissions made above,
and the fact that the parties have settled their dispute,
I am inclined to allow the present petition. In the fact
scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioner
to the rigors of trial at this belated stage would 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.
13. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions
made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Udala
P.S. Case No.97 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.286 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned
S.D.J.M., Udala and the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed.
14. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 18-Feb-2025 10:16:53
