Rabindra Kumar Mohanty vs State Of Odisha Vs

Savitri Ratho, J

That the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1860 of 2016 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 95 of 2016, registered under Sections 498-A/323/325/406/307/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of the learned SDJM (Sadar), Cuttack.

That the prosecution allegations in brief as per the F.I.R lodged by opposite party No.2 i.e. Abhipsa Mohanty is that her marriage was solemnized on 09.02.2010 with one Atma Ranjan Mohanty . After marriage, they led their marital life at the house of the petitioner and also at his working place at Hyderabad. After some days she was tortured her physically and mentally and her husband and in laws were not taking care of her and assaulted her brutally. Finding no other way out, she left her matrimonial house on 26.02.2013 and stayed at her father's hous and lodged FIR leading to registration of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 95 of 2016, under Sections 498-A/323/325/406/307/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against her husband and the petitioners .

After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the present case on 21.04.2017 for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A/323/325/406/307/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioners and Atma Ranjan Mohanty .Trial has commenced in the case .

That  the  petitioners  are  in-laws  of  opposite  party  no.2. Petitioner no. 1 Rabindra Kumar Mohanty is the uncle in law , Petitioner No.2-Gyanendra Kumar Mohanty is the Father and Petitioner No 3 Smt. Namita Mohanty is the mother-in-Law of opposite party no.2.

That, Mr. Chitta Ranjan Swain, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Atma Ranjan Mohanty and the Opposite party No.2 have filed joint affidavit before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, stating therein that their dispute has already been settled for which their marriage has been dissolved . CRLMC No. 1881 of 2024 had been filed by Atma Ranjan Mohanty for quashing the proceedings and vide order passed on 14.11.2024 , the proceedings against him have been quashed . But the proceedings are continuing against the petitioners causing them a lot of hardship .

Mr. Hrudananda Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed against the petitioners as divorce has already been granted and her marriage with Atma Ranjan Mohanty has been dissolved and the proceedings against him have been quashed .

In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case  of B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Jitendra Raghuvanshi  vs  Babita  Raghuvanshi reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 where it has been held that if if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing and the High Court has power 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 .

As the matrimonial dispute between the opposite party No. 2 and her husband has been resolved and the proceedings against him have been quashed , no useful purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings pending against the petitioners who are his relations .

In view of the above discussion , I am satisfied that this is fit a case where the proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed, in the interest of justice .

It is accordingly directed that the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1860 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack which arise out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 95 of 2016 , against the petitioners- Rabindra Kumar Mohanty, Gyanendra Kumar Mohanty and Smt. Namita Mohanty are quashed.

The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.

... ....………………………….