[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Praveen Kumar Sharma & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 16 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.5552 of 2025
Praveen Kumar Sharma & Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
Mrs. Babita Pattnaik, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
(for O.P. No.1)
Mr. Ramashish Acharya, Adv.
(for O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order No. ORDER
03. 16.03.2026
1.
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioners have prayed for
quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them vide
Purighat P.S. Case No.13 of 2025 in connection with G.R. Case No.30
of 2025, pending before the Court in seisin over the mater.
4. Pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2026, Petitioner No.1 and Opposite
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Party No.1 are present before this Court and filed a joint affidavit
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 17-Mar-2026 18:28:37
dated 16.03.2026, which is taken on record. The relevant paragraphs
read as under:
"1. That the Deponent No.1 is the Petitioner No.1 and
the Deponent No.2 is the Opposite Party No.2 in the
present CRLMC application, and both of us are well
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the Deponent No.1 and Deponent No.2 were
previously husband and wife. Due to matrimonial
discord and temperamental differences, the Deponent
No.2 had lodged an F.I.R. dated 10.01.2025 before
Purighat P.S., which was registered as Purighat P.S.
Case No.13 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.30 of
2025, under Sections 85, 126(2)/115(2)/88/351(2)/3(5) of
the BNS, 2023 and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act.
3. That During the pendency of the matrimonial
disputes, with the intervention of well-wishers, relatives,
and family members, both the deponents amicably
resolved all their disputes.
4. That pursuant to such settlement, the Deponents filed
a joint petition for mutual divorce under Section 13(B) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was registered as
C.P. No.163 of 2025 before the learned Judge, Family
Court, Cuttack.
5. That the said marriage between the Deponents was
dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 19.07.2025 passed
by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.
6. That, as per the terms and conditions of the settlement
and the evidence affidavit filed in the divorce proceedings,
the Deponent No.2 agreed not to purse the criminal and
civil proceedings initiated against the Petitioners,
including the present Purighat P.S. Case No.13 of
2025/G.R. Case No.30 of 2025.
7. That both the Deponents hereby state that all disputes
between them have been settled amicably and they have
no further claims or grievances against each other.
8. That the Deponent No.2 has no objection if the F.I.R.
in Purighat P.S. Case No.13 of 2025 and the
consequential criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No.30
of 2025 pending before the learned trial Court are
quashed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.
9. That this Joint Affidavit is being filed voluntarily by
both the Deponents without any fear, force, coercion, or
undue influence."
5. The joint affidavit filed by the Petitioners and Opposite Party No.2,
which is accepted and shall form a part of this order.
6. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another1,
has held that in appropriate cases involving matrimonial disputes or
private disputes of personal nature, where the parties have amicably
settled their differences, the High Court may exercise its inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in
order to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of
Court.
7. This Court has also followed the said principle in Lokanath @ Anadi
Sethi and four others v. State of Orissa and four others2, and Sansuri
alias Khageswar Lenka and another v. State of Orissa and Another3,
and has held that where the dispute has been settled and the parties,
continuation of the criminal proceeding would serve no fruitful
purpose.
(2012) 10 SCC 303
2014 (II) OLR 29
2014 (II) OLR 452
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties, the contents of the joint affidavit filed by the
Petitioners and Opposite Party No.2 and taking into account the ratio
laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no useful purpose would be served in permitting the
criminal proceeding to continue, as the same would amount to an
abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the prayer made in the
CRLMC is allowed.
9. Consequently, the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the
Petitioners in connection with Purighat P.S. Case No.13 of 2025
corresponding to G.R. Case No.30 of 2025, pending before the Court
in seisin over the matter 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.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sipun
