[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Minati Patra @ Mata 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.3320 of 2025
Minati Patra @ Mata
Patra & Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Ashok Kumar Jena, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
Mr. Bishnubrata Singh, Adv.
(for O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order No. ORDER
02. 07.03.2026
1.
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard.
3. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioners have approached this Court
seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against
them vide G.R. Case No.811 of 2022 arising out of Madhupatna P.S.
Case No.182 of 2022 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C.-IV
Designation: Senior Stenographer
(Cog. Taking), Cuttack.
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,
CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 17:14:23
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that since the marriage
has already been dissolved between Opposite Party No.2 and
Petitioner No.4 and as the marriage proposal of Opposite Party No.2
is going on by her parents, she does not want to proceed in the above
noted G.R. Case. Accordingly, he prays for quashing of the entire
criminal proceedings.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 has
advanced similar submissions and has supported the prayer made by
the Petitioners.
6. In support of their contention, an Interim Application vide I.A.
No.3822 of 2025 has filed on behalf of the Petitioner No.4 and
Opposite Party No.2 in Court today, which is taken on record. The
operative portion of the said I.A. reads as under:
"1. That, the Opp. Party No.2 Mamali Sahoo 15 the OF
ORT ex-wife (Divorce) of Petitioner No.5 Pabitra Prasad
Patra and others petitioners are in-laws of the Opp.
Party No.2.
2. That on basis of the written report lodged by the Opp.
Party No.2 at Madhupatna Police Station a case was
registered against all the petitioners for commission of
offences under Section- 498(A), 323, 294, 506/34 of
I.P.C. read with under Section-4 of the D.P. Act, and
under Section-307 I.P.C. against Petitioner No.5 and
which was registered as Madhupatna P.S. Case No.182
of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.811 of 2022
pending in the court of J.M.F.C.(IV) Cog Taking,
Cuttack.
3. That, in the meantime as per the petition filed by the
Opp. Party No.2 before the Judge, Family Court,
Kendrapara against the petitioner No.5, to dissolve the
marriage by granting a decree of divorce bearing C.P.
No.287 of 2022 and the same has been allowed by the
learned Trial Court on 02.05.2022.
4. That, since the marriage has already been dissolved
between the Opp. Party No.2 and Petitioner No.5 and as
the marriage proposal of Opp. Party No.2 is going on by
her parents, she does not want to proceed inthe Criminal
case i.e. G.R. Case No.811 of 2022 against the
petitioners.
5. That, the Opp. Party No.2 had also filed one Criminal
Proceeding bearing No.163 of 2022 against Petitionier
No.5 claiming maintenance and the same has also been
withdrawn by the Opp. Party No.2.
6. That, since the matter has been settled between the
parties and the Opp. Party No.2 has already divorced
Petitioner No.5, the Opp. Party No.2 looking to her
future marital life does not want to proceed with the
criminal case.
7. That, in view of the compromise between the parties,
the Opp. Party No.2 does not want to contest the case
further and she has no objection to quash the Criminal
proceeding in G.R. Case No.811 of 2022."
7. It is well settled that although the offence under Section 498-A of the
I.P.C. is 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.
8. Considering the contents of the I.A. filed by the Petitioners and
Opposite Party No.2/informant 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.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations, the
application is allowed. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings
initiated against the Petitioners in the aforesaid G.R. Case No.811 of
2022 corresponding to Madhupatna P.S. Case No.182 of 2022,
pending before the Court of the learned J.M.F.C.-IV (Cog. Taking),
Cuttack stands quashed.
10. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
11. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
12. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
13. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
14. A copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial Court for
information.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sipun
(2012) 10 SCC 303
2014 (II) OLR 29
2014 (II) OLR 452
