[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Soumya Ranjan Bastia vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opp. ... on 15 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1257 of 2025
Soumya Ranjan Bastia .... Petitioner
Mr. J.S. Samal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, AGA
Mr. Sabit Kumar Behera,
Advocate for opposite party no.2
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 15.01.2026
02.
1.
Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the
F.I.R. in connection with UPD, Bhubaneswar Mahila
P.S. Case No.173 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case
No.1761 of 2023 came to be registered against the
petitioner for the alleged commission of offences
punishable under Sections 498-A/323/307/294/34 of
the IPC r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act, pending in the
Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the
marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the
informant on 26.11.2021. At the time of marriage, the
father of the informant had given Rs.5 lakhs along
with other household articles as per demand. But after
few days of the marriage, her husband along with
other in-laws started torturing the informant
demanding more dowry, her father had given Rs.2
lakhs to her in-laws by succumb to such demand.
After few days, the in-laws demand more dowry. But
when she expressed her inability to fulfill their
demand, they assaulted and tried to kill her. On
07.05.2023, the informant informed to her brother
about all the incident. Her brother came to the house
of her in-laws and tried to solve the matter. But all in
vain. Hence, the F.I.R.
4. The petitioner has moved the present petition
seeking quashing of the entire F.I.R. When the matter
stood thus, the parties have entered into a settlement
and they have settled the matter.
5. The opposite party no.2 has appeared before this
Court on advance notice.
6. The opposite party no.2, who is the informant in
the present case, is present in person before this Court
today. The petitioner, who is the husband of the
opposite party no.2 is also present in person in the
Court today. They are identified by their respective
counsels. They have also filed the self-attested
photocopies of their Aadhaar cards, to establish their
identity, which are taken on record.
7. Both the petitioner and the opposite party no.2
conjointly submit that the petition may be allowed as
they have settled their dispute and mutually
separated. They have also filed the Joint Affidavit
dated 15.01.2026 before this Court stating, inter alia,
as under:
" 2. That the First Information Report (FIR) in
this matter was instituted, and the parties
involved have now arrived at an amicable
settlement. The dispute between the parties,
which arose due to a monetary lapse in
judgment, has been resolved. The
misunderstanding that led to the litigation has
been cleared, and both have instituted petition
for Mutual Divorce U/s- 13B of Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 before the Learned Judge, Family
Court, Cuttack having Case No.CP-776/2024.
3. That pending the litigation will cause undue
prejudice to both parties and unnecessarily
consume the valuable time of the Court. With the
lapse of time and resolution of
misunderstandings, it is in the best interest of
both parties to dismiss the proceedings to
maintain their amicable settlement."
8. On query from the Court, the opposite party No.2-
wife submits that in terms of the settlement, she has
already received a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- and the first
motion under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act
has already been over. The petitioner has undertaken
before this Court that at the time of the second motion
of the petition U/s 13 B of HM Act, the remaining
agreed amount of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be paid to the
opposite party no.2. The oral undertaking is taken on
record.
9. On the basis of the aforementioned settlement
terms, the petitioner seeks quashing of the present
F.I.R. The opposite party no.2 has no objection to the
same.
10. Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the opposite party
No.1-State submits that the parties have already
settled their dispute and they have filed the joint
affidavit to that effect. The petitioner has already paid
Rs.6,50,000/- to the opposite party no.2 at the first
motion and he has undertaken before this Court that
at the second motion, he would pay the remaining
agreed amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the opposite party
no.2. They have taken a conscious decision to put a
quietus to the dispute in its entirety. Therefore, there
is no legal impediment in quashing the F.I.R.
11. Regard being had to the nature of allegation made
by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner and
this being a matrimonial dispute arising out of a
matrimonial discord and the fact that since the parties
have settled their dispute and they have also file the
joint affidavit to that effect, I am inclined to allow the
present petition.
12. Taking into consideration the facts of the present
case and the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties at the Bar, the F.I.R. in
connection with UPD, Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case
No.173 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.1761 of
2023 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhubaneswar and the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed.
13. The parties are bound by the settlement terms.
In the event, the petitioner fails to make good the
entire payment as agreed to the opposite party no.2,
the F.I.R. will be revived and the investigation will be
taken up in accordance with law.
14. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 19-Jan-2026 10:38:36
