Orissa High Court
Karnat Keshari Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opp. ... on 18 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4551 of 2024
Karnat Keshari Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. Raj Kishor
Swain,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr.Satyabrata
Panda, ASC
and Mr.Sanjeeb
Kumar Das,
Advocate for
O.P. No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 18.02.2025
04.
1. Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the
F.I.R. in connection with Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case
No.506 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1325 of
2023 came to be registered against the petitioner for
Page 1 of 5
the alleged commission of offences punishable under
Sections-294/323/341/498-A/34 of the IPC r/w
Section 4 of the D.P. Act, pending in the Court of
learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that, on
09.08.2023, the opposite party No.2 reported that, on
07.07.2021, she had married to the present petitioner
as per Hindu rites and customs. During the marriage,
the family members of the opposite party No.2 had
given all the dowry articles as demanded by the family
of the petitioner. After few days of their marriage, the
in-laws family members of the opposite party No.2
tortured her both physically and mentally demanding
more dowry. Many times, her husband abuses her in
filthy languages and assaults her. The in-laws family
members of the opposite party No.2 threatened her
and tried to kill her. Hence, the F.I.R.
4. After the investigation, the charge sheet has
already been filed in the present case.
5. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 have
filed an application under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu
Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage by
mutual consent before the learned Judge, Family
Court, Cuttack. The learned Judge, Family Court,
Cuttack, vide its judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed in
Civil Proceeding No.261 of 2023 has allowed the
prayer made by the parties and dissolved the marriage
between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 by
Page 2 of 5
mutual consent.
6. From the judgment of the learned Judge, Family
Court, it appears that a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- has
already been paid as permanent alimony to the
respondent No 2. On the basis of the settlement terms,
the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing
of the F.I.R.
7. 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.
8. The parties have filed the joint affidavit dated
13.02.2025 before this Court, inter alia, stating as
under:
"2. That, the aforesaid proceeding has filed by the
petitioner challenging the order of cognizance dtd-
9.8.23 passed in G.R. case No-1325/23 by the
Learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur praying to quash
the entire proceeding vis-à-vis the order of cognizance
taken therein.
3. That to end all litigations, we have entered into a
compromise and accordingly filed a compromise
petition in a Divorce proceeding pending between us
under sec-13 (b) of Hindu marriage act. In the said
compromise petition, we have taken a ground that all
pending proceedings will be withdrawn/closed in
course of the said compromise and the decree going to
be passed in the Divorce proceeding. fact remains
both the petitioners and the informant are adjacent
neighbourers and they are well known to each other
due to some differences of the opinion this case was
filed and in the meantime both of them settled the
matter for which they have no interest at all to
proceed further in the above case for which we both of
us without any force pressure etc. filling this affidavit
for quashing of the FIR and proceeding there on for
ends of the justice.
4. That consequent upon the compromise, I have
already received the life alimony of Rs.4,50,000/-
from the petitioner, peace and amity have already
been restored. So, I have no objection if the GR Case
pending against the petitioner bearing no.1325/23
before the learned SDJM, Jagatsinghpur is quashed."
9. The opposite party No.2, who is present in the
Court today, on the query from the Court, submits
that, she has already received the permanent alimony
of Rs.4,50,000/- on the dissolution of the marriage
vide judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.
10. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel
appearing for the opposite party No.1-State submits
that, the dispute is arising out of a matrimonial
discord and the parties have settled their dispute.
Therefore, there is no legal impediment in quashing
the F.I.R.
11. 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 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.
12. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions
made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with
Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.506 of 2023
corresponding to G.R. Case No.1325 of 2023 pending
in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur and
the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua
the petitioner are quashed.
13. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 18-Feb-2025 20:02:03
