Keshab Chandra Nath vs State Of Odisha Vs

Savitri Ratho, J

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 965 of 2010 in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack, which arises out Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 43 of 2010.

BACKGROUND

FIR

The marriage of the petitioner and opposite party No.2 had been solemnized on 12.05.2007. Out of their wedlock, a female child was born on 30.05.2009. On account of matrimonial dispute, Opposite Party No.2 had lodged FIR on 11.08.2010, FIR had been lodged by the -opposite party No.2 at the Cuttack Mahila Police Station, leading to registration Mahila P.S. Case No. 43/2010, against the petitioner, her parents in law, two brothers in law and sister in law under Section 498-A, 294, 506 / 34 I.P.C. This corresponds to G.R. Case No. 965 of 2010 in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack.

AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AND MUTUAL DIVORCE

While the matter remained unresolved for a considerable period, village gentries intervened into the matter and tried to resolve the dispute between the parties but as the parties did not agree to reside with each other, it was decided to dissolve their marriage, on mutual consent. Accordingly both the parties filed Civil Proceeding No.933 of 2021 before Judge Family Court Cuttack U/s.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve their marriage on mutual consent. The learned Judge Family Court disposed of C.P. No.933 of 2021 and dissolved the marriage between petitioner and Opp. Party No.2 on mutual consent by judgment dated 06.05.2022 on payment of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh) to the Opp. Party No.2 by the petitioner.

Trial has commenced in G.R. Case No. 965 of 2010, but parents of the petitioner - Naran Nath and Sulochana Nath who were facing trial alongwith him have expired in the meanwhile.

SUBMISSIONS

Mr. Niranjan Prasad Patra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved, they are living separately and their marriage has been dissolved by a decree of mutual consent on 06.05.2022 and in full and final settlement, ₹16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs) was paid by the petitioner to Opposite Party No.2, which she has accepted without any objection.

He further submits that as per Clause-VI of the Civil Proceeding No. 933 of 2021, both parties have undertaken to withdraw all the cases filed by the parties i.e. petitioner and Opp. Party No.2 before different courts as well as in the Mahila Police Station and Hon'ble High Court. As both of them are living separately, there is no dispute between them for which G.R. Case No.965/2010 may be quashed.

Perusal of the record of this CRLMC reveals that notice had been issued to the opposite party no.2 on 25.11.2022 pursuant to which Mr. Ambika Prasad Ray, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. On 09.04.2025 on his submission that he has unable to contact the opposite party no.2, this Court had issued fresh notice to opposite party no.2 through the I.I.C., Jagatpur Police Station.

When the matter is taken up today, Mr. A.P. Ray, learned counsel submits that a mutual decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on 06.05.2022, dissolving their marriage and the opposite party No.2 has received permanent alimony for which she does not want to proceed further in this case against the petitioner and has filed an affidavit to that effect.

Both counsel submit that the petitioner and opposite party No2 had appeared in this court on 17.04.2025, and stated about the settlement and their personal appearance has been dispensed by the Court.

Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State submits that in view of passing of decree of divorce on mutual consent, the State can have no objection if the criminal proceedings which essentially arises out of a matrimonial dispute, are quashed.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303, while answering the reference concluded that "it cannot be said that the decisions in B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma are not correctly decided" and also held as follows:-

"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

In the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi vs. Babita Raghuvanshi : (2013) 4 SCC 58, the Supreme Court after referring to  its  decision  in  the case  of B.S.  Joshi  and  Others  vs.  State  of Haryana and Another : (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held as follows :

"14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.

In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non- compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.

There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Certified Copy of the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Cuttack, reveals that some witnesses had been examined and cross-examined. On 25.11.2024 the case record was transferred to the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack and on 03.03.2025, the case has been adjourned to 17.05.2025 awaiting death report of co-accused Naran Nath and Sulochana Nath, parents of the petitioner.

An affidavit styled as a show cause reply on behalf of the opposite party no.2, sworn on 16.04.2025, is filed in Court and is taken on record. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit are extracted below:-

“2. That, the Opp. Party No.2 / Wife lodged FIR before Mahila P.S. which was registered as P.S. Case No.43/2010 which corresponds to G.R. Case No.965/2010 pending in the file of JMFC, Cuttack which is annexed herewith as Annexure-1.

That, while resolve of the dispute between the parties failed, both the parties did not agree to reside together for which it was decided to dissolve the marriage between petitioner/husband and Opp. Party No.2/Wife on mutual consent. Accordingly both the parties filed Civil Proceeding No.933/2021 before learned Judge Family Court, Cuttack U/s.13(b) of Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner & Opp. Party No.2 on mutual consent which is annexed herewith as Annexure-2, on payment of lum sum amount to the wife. The Learned Judge, Family Court disposed of the C.P. No.933/2021 and dissolved the marriage between petitioner and Opp. Party No.2 on mutual consent by the order dated 06.05.2022 passed in C.P. No.933/2021 on receipt of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs) from the petitioner.”

The copy of the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in C.P. No. 933 of 2021 has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this application. Paragraph 8(vi) of this application is extracted below:-

“8(vi) That, as per agreement both parties undertake to withdraw all the cases filed by them and they do not want to proceed with those cases”

By judgment dated 06.05.2022 the marriage between petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and with the further direction that the original petition filed to that effect form part of the decree. Copy of the judgment in C.P. No. 933 of 2021 has been filed as Annexure-3 to this application

Even though the G.R. Case No. 965 of 2010 is in the midst of trial, I am of the opinion that as the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and opposite party No. 2 has received permanent alimony and both had agreed that they would withdraw all cases filed by them, I am satisfied that the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 965 of 2010 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack should be quashed.

The proceeding in G.R. Case No. 965 of 2010 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack which arises out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 43 of 2010 stands quashed.

The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

... ....………………………….