Orissa High Court
Biswajit Khatai & vs State Of Odisha And ... Opposite ... on 5 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.875 of 2025
Biswajit Khatai & ... Petitioner(s)
Others .
Mr. Manas Kumar Chand, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and ... Opposite Party(s)
Another .
Mr. S.B. Panda, ASC
Mr. Biswajit Pasayat,
Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 & 3,
Ms. Saraswati Senapati, Adv.
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 05.03.2025
01. 1. Heard.
2. At the instance of opposite party No.2, the F.I.R.
being Balipatna P.S. Case No.406 of 2024 came to be
registered against the petitioners for the alleged
commission of the offences under Sections 85,115(2),
351(2),3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, the
opposite party No.2 reported the case at Balipatna P.S.
inter-alia alleging that, she had married to the petitioner
No.2. After few days of their marriage, her husband and in-
law members started torturing her many times demanding
more dowry. They have also threatened to kill her, if she will
not fulfill the dowry demand. Hence, the F.I.R.
Page 1 of 4
4. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in
the case on 27.11.2024 and the Trial Court vide order dated
27.11.2024
has taken cognizance of the offences punishable
under the sections 85/115(2)/351(2)/316(2)/3(5) of B.N.S.,
2023 read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the
Petitioners.
5. When the matter stood thus the parties entered
into a settlement. On the basis of settlement made between
the present Petitioners and Opposite Party No.2, they have
approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding.
6. The Opposite Party No.2 and the Petitioner No.1
have now resumed their matrimonial life. The Opposite
Party No.2 seeks withdraw the cases initiated by her against
the petitioners.
7. The Petitioners and Opposite party No.2 are present
in person in Court today represented by their respective
counsel. They have also filed the photocopies of their self-
attested Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which
are taken on record.
8. The opposite party No.2 who is present in Court
has filed affidavit dated 05.03.2025, inter alia, stating as
under:-
"2. That, although for some misunderstanding
and subsequent miscommunication between
myself and the Petitioners of this case, I have
lodged F.I.R. against the Petitioners but in the
meantime due to intervention of some Relations
of both the parties, the dispute which has
resulted the F.I.R. has been amicably settled for
which at present I am staying with my husband
and in-laws family members and good
relationship is prevailing amongst us for such
reason, I am no more interested to proceed
further in this case against the petitioners.
3. That, in view of such settlement as I have no
more grievance against the Petitioners and I
hereby declare that I will also not depose against
the Petitioners in the Trial Court during Trial
and has no objection if based on my such stand
the present CRLMC may be allowed by this
Hon'ble Court.
4. That, I hereby declare that this Affidavit has
been made out of my sweet will but not due to
any Force, Coercion, inducement or Threat made
by any person to me and the facts stated above
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief."
9. Mr. S.N. Biswal, 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 in the
meantime the parties have settled their dispute. The opposite
party No.2, the informant who is present in the Court, has
reiterated her stand that she has settled her dispute with the
petitioner No.2 for which she has filed the affidavit before this
Court to that effect. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in
quashing the F.I.R.
10. 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 petitioners 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.
11. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions made at the
Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Balipatna P.S. Case No.406
of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1786 of 2024, pending
in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.(O), Bhubaneswar and the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the
petitioners are quashed.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Narayan
Designation: Personal Assistant
