[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Pallab Das & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite ... on 17 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.395 of 2026
Pallab Das & Ors. ..... Petitioner (s)
Mr. Anshuman Ray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
Mr. Anurag Pati,
Advocate for O.P No.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 17.02.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Mr. Anurag Pati, learned counsel, by filing Vakalatnama
in Court today, which is taken on record, enters appearance on
behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
3. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to
quash the entire criminal proceeding and the order of
cognizance dated 30.03.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhubaneswar in CT No.336 of 2025 arising out of Maitri Vihar
PS Case No. 066 of 2025.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner and the informant were legally married and their
marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual
consent by the learned Judge, Family Court 1, Bhubaneswar
vide judgment dated 08.01.2025 passed in CP No. 507 of 2024.
Digitally Signed Page 1 of 3.
He further contends that the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties. A Joint Affidavit has been filed to that effect
which shall form a part of the record. The contents of the Joint
Affidavit is extracted hereinbelow: -
"1.That the Opp. Party No.2 lodged a FIR
before the Maitri Vihar Police Station vide
P.S. Case No.66 of 2025 which was registered
against the Petitioner on dated 05.03.2025 for
alleged commission of the offences punishable
U/s 126(2), 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 74 of
BNS.
2. That after submission of chargesheet the
learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar taken
cognizance on 30.03.2025. The above
cognizance order and the entire criminal
proceeding has been challenged in the present
application. During pendency of the criminal
proceeding, an amicable settlement has been
arrived at between the Petitioner and Opp.
No.2 (informant).
3.That in view of the amicable settlement,
the informant/Opp.No.2 does not want to
proceed with the case any further and he has
no objection if the Petitioner is discharged in
the present case and the proceeding is quashed
on the ground of settlement."
5. Considering the contents of the joint affidavit filed by the
Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2/ Complainant and following
the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab and another1 and two other reported cases of this Court in
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
Digitally Signed Page 2 of 3.
Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four others v. State of Orissa and four
others2, and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and another -vrs.- State
of Orissa and Another3, this Court is of the opinion that no useful
purpose will be served in allowing such proceedings to continue the
criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case as it will only lead to abuse
the process of law.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations, the
application is allowed. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding
and the order of cognizance dated 30.03.2025 passed by the
learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in CT No.336 of 2025 arising out
of Maitri Vihar PS Case No. 66 of 2025 is hereby quashed.
7. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
2 2014 (II) OLR 29
3 2014 (II) OLR 452
Digitally Signed Page 3 of 3.
