Orissa High Court
Mrutunjaya Swain & Others vs State Of Odisha & Another …. Opp. … on 30 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4108 of 2024
Mrutunjaya Swain & others .... Petitioners
Mr. Rabindra
Nath Prusty,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mrs. Sarita
Mahrana, ASC
and Mr.
Aloknath Hota,
Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 30.01.2025
03.
1.
Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the
F.I.R. in connection with Mancheswar P.S. Case No.34
of 2021 corresponding to C.T. Case No.681 of 2021
came to be registered against the petitioners for the
Page 1 of 6
alleged commission of offences punishable under
Sections 498-A/294/506/34 of the IPC r/w Section 4
of the D.P. Act, pending in the Court of learned
J.M.F.C. (LR), Bhubaneswar.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, the
opposite party No.2 reported at Mancheswar P.S.
alleging that, she had marred to the petitioner No.1.
After few days of their marriage, her husband and in-
laws members started torturing her many times
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, the charge sheet in the
present case has already been filed on 28.08.2023 for
the alleged commission of the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A/294/506/34 of the IPC r/w
Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
5. The learned trial Court, vide order dated
31.08.2023 has also taken cognizance of the
aforementioned offences against the petitioners.
6. When the matter stood thus, the parties have
settled their dispute. Pursuant to the settlement
terms, the petitioner No.1 and the opposite party No.2
had applied for dissolution of their marriage by mutual
consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriag Act.
7. The learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar,
while allowing the C.P. No.692 of 2021 vide judgment
dated 23.02.2022 dissolved the marriage between the
Page 2 of 6
petitioner No.1 and the opposite party No.2 by mutual
consent.
8. The petitioners have now moved the present
application seeking quashing of the criminal
prosecution initiated against them by the opposite
party No.2 on the basis of the settlement terms.
9. The petitioner No.1, who the husband of the
opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 are
present in the Court today. The petitioner No.1 is
physically present, whereas the opposite party No.2
has appeared before this Court through Video
Conferencing mode.
10. So far as the petitioners Nos.2 to 5 are concerned,
although they are not present before this Court today,
however, learned counsel for the petitioners has moved
an application seeking exemption of their personal
appearance. All of them are the in-laws of the opposite
party No.2. So far as the petitioners Nos.2 to 5 are
concerned, for the reasons stated in the application for
exemption of personal appearance, their personal
appearance is exempted.
11. The petitioners and the opposite party No.2 are
being represented by their respective counsel. They
have also filed the photocopies of their self-attested
Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are
taken on record.
12. The opposite party No.2 has also filed an affidavit
dated 29.01.2025 before this Court, inter alia, stating
Page 3 of 6
as under:
“2. That, O.P. no.2 was married to the Petitioner No.1
and petitioner nos.2 to 5 are her in-laws. OP no.2
lodged an FIR in Mancheswar Police Station that was
registered as Mancheswar PS Case No.34 of 2021 for
offences committed U/s. 498A, 294, 506 and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Mancheswar PS Case
No.34 of 2021 was forwarded as CT Case No.681 of
2021 that is pending before the Hon’ble JMFC (LR),
Bhubaneswar in the district of Khurda.
3. That, the police conducted its investigation and
submitted Charge sheet vide CS No.533 dated
28.08.2023 U/s 498A, 294, 506 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners.
4. That, it is humbly submitted that the OP no.2 and
Petitioner no.1 approached the learned Judge, Family
Court, Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceeding No.692 of
2021 praying for dissolution of their marriage by a
decree of divorce by mutual consent U/s 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was allowed vide
Judgment dated 23.02.2022.
5. That, it is also humbly submitted that the marriage
between the Petitioner no.1 and Opp. Party no.2 has
been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual
consent of learned Judge, Family Court,
Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceeding No.692 of 2021. As
a result, there is no relationship between the
Petitioner no.1 and Opp. Party no.2 as husband and
wife respectively.
6. That, the petitioners have filed the present case
before this Hon’ble Court praying for quashing the
order of cognizance and the criminal proceeding
pending against them in connection with CT case
No.681 of 2021 corresponding to Mancheswar PS
Case No.32 of 2021 pending before the Court of
learned JMFC (LR), Bhubaneswar.
7. That, in such circumstances, Opp. Party no.2
humbly submits that she has no objections to the
prayer of the petitioners in this present case for a
direction of this Hon’ble Court for quashing of the
order of cognizance and the criminal proceeding
Page 4 of 6
pending against the petitioners in connection with CT
Case No.681 of 2021 corresponding to Mancheswar
PS Case No.32 of 2021 pending before the Court of
learned JMFC (LR), Bhubaneswar. Opp. Party No.2
also respectfully submits she does not intend to
challenge the order of this Hon’ble Court for quashing
of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners
before a Higher Forum.”
13. The opposite party No.2, who is present in the
Court today through the V.C. mode, on the query from
the Court, has stated that, she had given her consent
for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner No.1
and she has also received the alimony. Hence, she
does not have any grievance against the petitioners.
14. Mrs. Sarita Maharana, learned Additional
Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party
No.1-State submits that, the dispute is essentially
arises out of a matrimonial discord leading to
registration of the F.I.R. and the parties have settled
their dispute. The opposite party No.2, the informant
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 that
effect. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in
quashing the F.I.R.
15. 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
Page 5 of 6
exercise. 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 MadhavraoJi Wajirao Scindia &
another v. Sambhajirao ChandrojiraoAngre and
others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the
petition deserves merit.
16. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions
made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with
Mancheswar P.S. Case No.34 of 2021 corresponding to
C.T. Case No.681 of 2021 pending in the Court of
learned J.M.F.C. (LR), Bhubaneswar and the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the
petitioners are quashed.
17. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 30-Jan-2025 19:56:52
Page 6 of 6
[ad_1]
Source link