Dasaratha Behera & vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2028 Ori

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2028 Ori
Judgement Date : 7 March, 2026

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Dasaratha Behera & vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 7 March, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                         CRLMC No.1821 of 2025

                                          Dasaratha Behera &         ....                 Petitioner(s)
                                          Ors.
                                                                        Mr. Manoranjan Khatua, Adv.

                                                                 -versus-
                                          State of Odisha & Anr.   ....             Opposite Party(s)
                                                                             Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC

                                                CORAM:
                                                HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                                  Order                              ORDER
                                  No.                               07.03.2026

01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioners being the members

of the in-laws' house of the informant/Opposite Party

No.2, have prayed for quashing the entire criminal

proceeding initiated against them based on the allegation

of some matrimonial dispute vide G.R Case No.631 of 2017

pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C, Baripal.

3. Heard.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits

that the criminal proceeding arising out of the selfsame

matrimonial dispute instituted against the husband of the

Opposite Party No.2/informant, has already been quashed

Designation: Personal Assistant

on compromise vide order passed in CRLMC No.3125 of Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Mar-2026 12:30:10

2024. He further contends that since the criminal

proceeding arising out of the selfsame matrimonial

dispute instituted against the main accused has already

been quashed, continuation of the above noted criminal

proceeding arising out of the said matrimonial dispute

against the other family members of the main accused

would serve no fruitful purpose. He, accordingly, prays

for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC.

5. It is well settled that although the offences under

Sections 498-A, 323, 307, 506, 406 & 34 of the I.P.C and

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-

compoundable, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is not

denuded of power to quash the criminal proceeding where

the dispute is essentially private and matrimonial in

nature and the parties have voluntarily arrived at a

genuine and complete settlement. The underlying object of

such exercise is to secure the ends of justice and to prevent

abuse of the process of the Court. Where the continuation

of the criminal proceeding, despite an amicable settlement,

would serve no fruitful purpose and would only

perpetuate bitterness between the parties, the High Court

would be justified in interdicting the prosecution,

particularly when the informant herself has unequivocally

expressed her consent for such quashing. Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Mar-2026 12:30:10

6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the

parties 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 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.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and since the