SANTOSH KUMAR PALTASINGH vs STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER

S. K. SAHOO, J. Â

In this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.427 of 2004

pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda in which cognizance of offences has been taken under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and

section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 06.11.2004. It appears that due to the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party

no.2 Smt. Rashmibala Mangaraj, the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case bearing I.C.C. Case No.347 of 2003 against the petitioner and his

parents in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda under sections 498-A/323/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code which was sent to police for registration

of the F.I.R. under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and for investigation and accordingly, Tangi P.S. Case No.123 of 2004 was registered under section

498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which corresponds to aforesaid G.R. Case No.427 of 2004.

The records further reveals that the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 filed a petition before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur

in MAT Case No.61 of 2003 for passing a decree of mutual divorce by dissolving the marriage between them and it was agreed upon between the

parties that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) to be paid towards permanent alimony and maintenance to opposite party no.2 and

accordingly, the said amount was paid and the suit was decreed as per the terms and conditions of the compromise petition by dissolving the marriage

between the parties by a decree of divorce on 25.11.2004. In the compromise petition, it is specifically mentioned that the parties have amicably

compromised and dissolved all the disputes pending or cropped up inter se and the defendant (opposite party no.2) undertook to withdraw further

prosecution by her in G.R. Case No.427 of 2004 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda. Prior to the compromise of the dispute between

the parties, charge sheet was submitted in G.R. Case No.427 of 2004 on 18.10.2004 and accordingly, the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda took cognizance

of offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In case of B.S. Joshi -Vrs.- State of Haryana reported in (2003) 25 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 99, where the question fell for consideration

whether the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked

to quash criminal proceeding in case of matrimonial dispute when such matters are resolved either by the wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home

or mutual separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes even though the case is one under sections 498-A and

406 of the Indian Penal Code and the offences are non-compoundable under section 320 of the Code, it has been held as follows:-

“14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to

a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or

torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would

act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent

power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of

Indian Penal Code.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint

and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the Code.†In view of the ratio laid down in case of B.S. Joshi

(supra) and the factual scenario that the matter has already been amicably settled between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 and mutual

divorce decree has been passed and the opposite party no.2 has received sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) towards permanent alimony and

maintenance and withdrawal of G.R. Case No.427 of 2004 was also one of the terms and conditions, I am inclined to accept the prayer made in the

petition and accordingly, I direct the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.427 of 2004 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda which arises

out of Tangi P.S. Case No.123 of 2004 stands quashed. Accordingly, the CRLMC application is allowed.