Orissa High Court
Balunkeswar Dash & vs State Of Odisha & Another …. Opp. … on 10 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4453 of 2024
Balunkeswar Dash & .... Petitioners
Others Kashinath Pattanaik,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S.N. Biswal, ASC
Mr. S. Dash,
Advocate for O.P.
No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 10.03.2025
03.
1.
Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the
F.I.R. dated 05.11.2023 in connection with Nachuni
P.S. Case No.285 of 2023 came to be registered
against the petitioners for the alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294,
323,342, 506, 34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the
D.P. Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, the
opposite party No.2 reported at Nachuni P.S. alleging
that, she had been married to the petitioner No.1 since
last seven years back. After few days of their marriage,
Page 1 of 5
her husband and in-law members started torturing
her demanding more dowry. They have also threatened
to kill her, if she will not fulfill the dowry demand.
Hence, the F.I.R.
4. After the investigation, charge-sheet has been
filed in the present case on 25.12.2023 for the alleged
commission of the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 294, 323, 342, 506, 34 of the IPC read with
Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioners.
5. The learned Court below has taken cognizance of
the offences as mentioned above against the
petitioners. Before the trial commenced, the parties
have settled their disputes and on the basis of the
settlement terms, the present petition has been filed
for quashing of the entire proceeding.
6. The Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 are
present in person in Court today. The Opposite Party
No.2 is represented by her counsel whereas Petitioner
No.1 is appearing in person. In so far as Petitioner
No.2 & 3 are concerned, they are the parents of
Petitioner No.1 and they are senior citizens. Therefore,
learned counsel for the Petitioners has moved an
application seeking exemption of personal appearance
of the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 before this Court. For the
reason stated in the application, the same is allowed.
The personal appearance of Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are
exempted.
Page 2 of 5
7. The opposite party No.2 has filed an affidavit dated
10.03.2025 before this Court, inter alia, stating as
under:-
“3. (i) That, I am the Opp. Party No.2 in the above
CRLMC filed by my husband Balunkeswar Dash
under Section-482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal
proceeding/FIR in Nachuni PS Case No.285 of 2023
which corresponds to JMFC(Chilika) G.R. Case
No.677 of 2023 for the offence under Section-498-A,
294, 323, 342, 506/34 IPC.
ii) That, I am the informant in the above case and on
the basis of my F.I.R. Nachuni P.S. Case No.285 of
2023 has been registered under Section-498-A, 294,
323, 342, 506/34 IPC against the petitioner who is
my husband, father-in-law & mother-in-law
respectively.
(iii) That, I have gone through the petition filed by the
petitioners under Section-482 Cr.P.C. and understood
the contents thereof.
(iv) That, my marriage was solemnized with the
petitioner No.1 in the year 2016 and after the
marriage we both spouses led a happy conjugal life
and out of our wedlock we have been blessed with a
daughter in the year 2017.
(v) That, my husband (Petitioner No.1) is working
under Police Department for which he seldom visits a
house and always busy in his duty for which our
daughter was neglected as there was no male
member in our family except my old ailing father-in-
law (Petitioner No.2) to take of our daughter for which
there was constant misunderstanding with my
husband which prompted me to lodge the present
F.I.R.
(vi) That, as a matter of fact, I was never subjected to
any ill-treatment and torture by the petitioners at any
point of time for demand of dowry.
(vii) That, in the meantime, due to the interference of
relation, well-wishers, we have resolved our
misunderstanding and the dispute has been amicably
settled further at present, I am staying in my in-laws
house and leading a happy conjugal life with my
husband.
(viii) That, I have no grievance against the Petitioners
further I would have no objection if the above criminal
proceeding shall be quashed since I am no more
interested to proceed further in the above case rather
continuance of the criminal proceeding may create
Page 3 of 5
domestic misunderstanding in future.
(ix) That, under such circumstances, the criminal
proceeding arising out of Nachuni P.S. Case No.285 of
2023 which corresponds to J.M.F.C.(Chilika) G.R.
Case No.677 of 2023 may be quashed.
(x) That, the facts stated in the affidavit are true and
correct and I am filing this affidavit out of my sweet
will and desire and without any undue influence and
coercion, I am putting my signature being present in
the court premises today.”
8. On the query from the Court, the opposite party
No.2, who is present in Court, has stated that, she has
given her consent for resume her marital life and
started residing with her matrimonial home. Due to
misunderstanding, she has lodged the F.I.R. Now she
has settled the dispute with the petitioners. She joins
with the petitioners praying for quashing of the entire
criminal prosecution initiated by her against the
petitioners.
9. Mr. S.N. Biswal, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State and Mr. S. Dash, learned
counsel for the opposite party No.2 submit that, the
dispute is essentially arising out of a matrimonial
discord and due to misunderstanding between the
parties, the F.I.R. has been lodged and now the parties
have settled their dispute. The opposite party No.2, the
informant who is present in the Court, has reiterated
her stand that, she has settled her dispute with the
petitioner No.1 and she has filed the affidavit before
this Court to that effect. Therefore, there is no legal
impediment in quashing the F.I.R.
Page 4 of 5
10. Regard being had to the submissions made above,
and the fact that the parties have settled their dispute,
I am inclined to allow the present petition. In the fact
scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioners
to the rigors of trial at this stage would be a futile
exercise and the present case is squarely covered by
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and
another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303; B.S. Joshi
& others v. State of Haryana & another, reported
in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao
Scindia & another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao
Angre and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709,
therefore, the petition deserves merit.
11. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions
made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Nachuni
P.S. Case No.285 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.677 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned
J.M.F.C., Chilika and the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: NARAYAN HO
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason:
Narayan Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 11-Mar-2025 20:55:19
Page 5 of 5
[ad_1]
Source link