Orissa High Court
Dr. Sunil Kumar Kar vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 16 October, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4162 of 2023
Dr. Sunil Kumar Kar .... Petitioner
Mr. U. R. Bastia, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opp. Parties
Ms. Siva Mohanty, Addl. P. P.
For O.P. No.1
Mr. S. R. Patnaik, Advocate
For O.P. No.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 16.10.2025
08. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present CRLMC
application seeking quashing of the entire criminal
proceeding in C.T. (S.S.) No. 99 of 2019 arising out of
G.R. Case No. 594 of 2016 corresponding to Dhenkanal
Town P.S. Case No. 161 of 2016 pending before the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal.
3. The case was registered on the basis of an FIR
lodged by Opposite Party No.2 alleging offences under
Sections 498-A/376/377/354-C/313/307/323/506/406/34
of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act against the Petitioner and his family members.
4. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted and cognizance of the offences was taken,
following which the case was committed to the Court of
Session. Subsequently, the learned Sessions Judge,
Dhenkanal discharged the Petitioner from the offence
under Section 376 IPC and framed charges under Sections
498-A/377/354-C/313/307/323/506/406/34 of the IPC
read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The
principal ground for seeking quashing of the proceeding is
that the marriage between the Petitioner and Opposite
Party No.2 has already been dissolved by a decree of
divorce passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Dhenkanal in C.P. No. 13 of 2017, wherein permanent
alimony of ₹25,00,000/- has been paid to Opposite Party
No.2, which she has accepted without challenge. In such
circumstances, it is contended that continuation of the
criminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility and
result in unnecessary wastage of valuable judicial time.
5. Learned counsel for both the parties have filed a
joint affidavit indicating that the dispute between them
has been amicably settled.
6. In another somewhat similar case, this Court, in Sk.
Alim and Ors. vs. State of Odisha and Anr. passed in
CRLMC No.660 of 2018, rendered a judgment which,
being apposite to the present context, relied upon the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. S. Joshi vs.
State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675; Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10
SCC 303, and Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs. Babita
Raghuvanshi & Anr., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58. It is
well-settled and held therein that the High Court, in
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
may quash criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to an
FIR alleging an offence under Section 498-A IPC, even
though such offence is non-compoundable, if the parties
have amicably settled their disputes, and to secure the ends
of justice, in order to prevent abuse of the process of law.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, since the
dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, i.e.,
the Petitioner-Husband and Opposite Party No.2-Wife, and
the marital relationship between them has already been
dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal, upon payment and
acceptance of permanent alimony, further continuance of
the criminal proceeding would serve no useful purpose.
8. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in C.T. (S.S.)
No. 99 of 2019 arising out of G.R. Case No. 594 of 2016
corresponding to Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No. 161 of
2016 pending before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Dhenkanal, stands quashed. The CRLMC is accordingly
allowed.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
AKPradhan
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 22-Oct-2025 17:52:13
