[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
(An Application Under Section 482 Of ... vs State Of Odisha on 9 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 1232 of 2022
(An application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
Rishikesh Sahoo .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Odisha
2. Reshma Subudhi @ Sahoo .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Narayan Prasad Parija, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Amitabh Pradhan,
Additional Standing Counsel
(For Opposite Party No.1)
None
(For Opposite Party No.2)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDG MENT
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 09.04.2026
Savitri Ratho, J. The CRLMC has been filed with a prayer for quashing of
the proceedings in G.R. Case No.1597 of 2017, arising out of
Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.91 of 2017 pending in the Court of
learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar) Cuttack.
BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE
2. The brief fact of the case is that on 14.12.2015 Petitioner
had married Opposite Party No.2 as per Hindu rites and customs.
Page 1 of 14
After marriage, they resided in the paternal residence of the
Petitioner, but due to differences between them, Cuttack Mahila P.S.
Case No.91 of 2017 was registered under Sections 498-
A/323/307/506/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against
the Petitioner, his parents and his two sisters on the complaint of
Opposite Party No.2. The parties were living separately from each
other since 01.01.2017.
SUBMISSIONS
3. Mr. N.P. Parija, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that due to intervention of the well-wishers of the parties, the parties
agreed to part ways amicably for which a joint petition i.e. Civil
Proceeding No.272 of 2021 had been filed under Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court,
Cuttack, in which it has been stated at paragraph-8 that the
litigations pending between the parties will not be proceeded and all
the litigations will automatically come to an end by passing a decree
of mutual divorce. Vide judgment dated 10.01.2022, the marriage
between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual
consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. As per their
agreement Rs.25 lakhs has been paid by the Petitioner to the
CRLMC No.1232 of 2022 Page 2 of 14
Opposite Party No.2 towards permanent alimony. After the decree of
divorce was passed, the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 are
leading their separate lives. As no steps have been taken by the
Opposite Party No.2 for withdrawal or quashing the proceeding in
G.R. Case No.1597 of 2017 pending in the Court of the learned
SDJM (Sadar), Cuttack the Petitioner was constrained to file this
CRLMC praying for quashing of the proceeding in G.R. Case
No.1597 of 2017.
4. Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, learned Additional Standing
Counsel opposes the submission of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner and submits that it is true that in matrimonial disputes
where there has been a divorce between the parties, criminal
proceedings have been quashed in many cases on the ground that the
wife/ informant does not want to proceed in the case, but in the
present case the offences include a non-compoundable and serious
offence like Section 307 of the IPC. He further submits that merely
because the parties have entered into a settlement and obtained a
decree of divorce by mutual consent under section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, the same does not automatically result in
quashing of the criminal proceedings.
CRLMC No.1232 of 2022 Page 3 of 14
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT
5. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana
and others : (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after
referring to its earlier decisions has laid down the principles
governing the quashing of matrimonial disputes where there has
been an amicable settlement, by holding as follows :
"12) The special features in such matrimonial matters
are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to
encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial
disputes.
13) The observations made by this Court, though in a
slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad & Ors. : (2000) 3 SCC 693, are very apt for
determining the approach required to be kept in view
in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that
there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in
recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the
main purpose of which is to enable the young couple
to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in commission
of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are
also involved with the result that those who could
have counselled and brought about rapprochement
are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as
CRLMC No.1232 of 2022 Page 4 of 14
accused in the criminal case. There are many other
reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties
may ponder over their defaults and terminate their
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years
and years to conclude and in that process the parties
lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in
different courts.
14) There is no doubt that the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian
Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by
her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section
498A was added with a view to punishing a husband
and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to
coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful
demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would
be counter productive and would act against interests
of women and against the object for which this
provision was added. There is every likelihood that
non-exercise of inherent power to quash the
proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent
women from settling earlier. That is not the object of
Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.
15) In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can
quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and
CRLMC No.1232 of 2022 Page 5 of 14
Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the
powers under Section 482 of the Code."
In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab : (2012) 10
SCC 303, where a larger Bench of the Supreme Court had been
constituted to decide the correctness of the decisions of this Court
in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, Nikhil
Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and
another and Manoj Sharma v. State and others, the Supreme Court
held as follows :-
"61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the
High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR
or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in
such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what
cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or
complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the
offender and victim have settled their dispute would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case
CRLMC No.1232 of 2022 Page 6 of 14
and no category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly
quashed even though the victim or victim's family and
the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have serious impact on
society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim
and offender in relation to the offences under special
statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working
in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour
stand on different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership
or such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family
disputes where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court
may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because
of the compromise between the offender and victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
CRLMC No.1232 of 2022 Page 7 of 14
continuation of criminal case would put accused to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
case despite full and complete settlement and
compromise with the victim. In other words, the High
Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise between the
victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends
of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to
an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
62. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S.
Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma were not
correctly decided. We answer the reference
accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the
concerned Bench(es)."
In the case of Sri Rangappa Javoor vs State of Karnataka
in SLP (Crl) No. 33313 of 2019, the Respondent though served with
notice, did not appear before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
while quashing the chargesheet in the case has held as follows:
"It is apparent that the parties have resolved and
settled their disputes. In the facts of the case, we do
not feel that any useful purpose would be served by
continuation of the prosecution. The appellant -
Rangappa Javoor, who is an officer in the Border
Security Force and as per the job requirement, has to
serve in different parts of the country, would be put to
harassment. This court has held that in cases of
offences relating to matrimonial disputes, if the Court
is satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled the
disputes amicably, then for the purpose of securing
ends of justice, criminal proceedings inter-se parties
can be quashed by exercising the powers under Article
142 of the Constitution of India or even under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."
The Supreme Court in the case of Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun
Sreenivasan; (2023) 14 SCC 231, has held as follows:
"36. The reason is that the courts must not encourage
matrimonial litigation, and prolongation of such
litigation is detrimental to both the parties who lose
their young age in chasing multiple litigations. Thus,
adopting a hyper technical view can be
counterproductive as pendency itself causes pain,
suffering and harassment and, consequently, it is the
duty of the court to ensure that matrimonial matters
are amicably resolved, thereby bringing the agony,
affliction, and torment to an end. In this regard, the
courts only have to enquire and ensure that the
settlement between the parties is achieved without
pressure, force, coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, or
undue influence, and that the consent is indeed sought
by free will and choice, and the autonomy of the
parties is not compromised. The latter two decisions in
Gian Singh and Jitendra Raghuvanshi observe that
the inherent power on the High Court under Section
482 CrPC is wide and can be used/wielded to quash
criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice and
prevent abuse of the process of the court, albeit it has
to be exercised sparingly carefully, and with caution."
In the case of Navneesh Aggarwal and others v. State of
Haryana and another, 2025 INSC 963, it has been held by the
Supreme Court as follows:
"14. Furthermore, this Court has consistently taken the
view that where the matrimonial relationship has come to
an end by way of divorce, and the parties have since
settled into their respective lives, criminal prosecution
emanating from that past relationship ought not to be
permitted to linger as a means of harassment. In the cases
of Mala Kar vs. State Of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal
No.1684 of 2024 dated 19.03.2024 and Arun Jain vs.
State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No.9178 of 2018 dated 01.04.2024, this Court, while
exercising its powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, quashed the criminal proceedings
arising out of matrimonial discord against the husband.
The Court took note of the fact that the couple therein had
divorced and held that in such a situation, to continue
with criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the
process of law. The reasoning adopted therein applies
with equal force to the facts of the relevant paragraph in
Arun Jain are extracted respectively as under:
"12. Following the aforesaid judgment, in the
instant case, we have already noted that there
has been a decree of divorce passed between the
parties dated 18.10.2014. It is thereafter that on
06.04.2015, the FIR was registered in respect of
the criminal complaint filed on 09.08.2014.
More significantly, both the appellant No.2 and
respondent No.2 have since remarried and are
leading their independent lives. Therefore, both
parties have accepted the decree of divorce
passed by the Family Court on 18.10.2014.
Moreover, the appellant No.2-former husband of
the respondent No.2 has agreed to pay a sum of
Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as ex-
gratia to the respondent No.2 herein in full and
final settlement of all her claims, with a prayer
to this Court to do complete justice in this matter
and for invoking its powers under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India.
xxx xxx xxx
Following the aforesaid judgments, in the instant
case, it is noted that the appellants and respondent No.2
were married on 01.11.1996 and a daughter was born to
them on 19.04.2001. It is also stated by learned counsel
for the appellants that appellant No.1 left the
matrimonial home on 23.04.2007 and thereafter
respondent No.2 sought divorce which was granted by
the Competent Court on 04.04.2013. It was only
thereafter on 31.10.2013 that respondent No.2 filed the
complaint against the appellants herein and the FIR was
registered on 13.02.2014 and the chargesheet was filed
on 22.09.2015. It is also to be noted that the proceedings
initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 in the year 2008 by respondent No.2
herein culminated in the dismissal of the said proceeding
on merits by order dated 28.07.2017 which has attained
finality. Having regard to the aforesaid peculiar and
crucial aspects of the present case and by following the
order dated 19.03.2024, the appeal is liable to be
allowed as we find that this is a fit case where we can
exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India."
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
6. Notice had been issued to the Opposite Parties by order
dated 06.01.2025 but office note indicates that notice has returned
unserved with the postal endorsement "Always door locked hence
returned to sender".
7. From a perusal of the judgment dated 10.01.2022 passed by
the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding
No.272 of 2021, it is apparent that the Petitioner and Opposite Party
No.2 had settled their differences and agreed for dissolving their
marriage by mutual consent and had also agreed that they would not
proceed with the litigations pending between them.
8. More than four years have elapsed since the marriage of the
parties has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
It can therefore be safely presumed that the parties are leading their
separate lives.
9. It is true that one of offences involved is under Section 307
of the IPC, but where the informant has no intentions to proceed
with the case, the possibility of conviction of the Petitioner in the
case is bleak and valuable time and resources of the Court will be
wasted if the proceedings are allowed to continue. It is also apparent
that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is a result of a dispute
relating to their marriage.
10. On a careful examination of the background facts, keeping
in mind the decisions of the Supreme Court and as the marriage
between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 has been dissolved
by a decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, no useful purpose will be served to keep G.R.
Case No. 1597 of 2017 in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar),
Cuttack pending.
11. I am satisfied that this is a fit case for exercise of power
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding in G.R.
Case No. 1597 of 2017 in the file of the learned SDJM (Sadar),
Cuttack which arises out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.91 of
2017.
12. The proceedings are accordingly quashed. The CRLMC is
allowed.
13. Copy of this order be sent to the learned SDJM (Sadar),
Cuttack.
14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated, the 9th April, 2026/RKS
