Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 251 (ORI)

JYOTIRMAYA NAYAK v. STATE OF ORISSA

2011-04-22

I.MOHANTY

body2011
JUDGMENT : I. Mohanty, J. Heard Mr. S.K. Sahoo, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Madani, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2. In this application u/s 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought to challenge the order dated 11.5.2009 passed in G.R. Case No. 265 of 2008, whereby, the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir has been pleased to take cognizance against them under Sections 498A, 406, 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 2. Mr. Sahoo, learned Counsel for the petitioners have filed a memo enclosing thereto copy of the judgment dated 9.2.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bolangir in Civil Suit No. 110 of 2010 by virtue of which the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 stood dissolved. 3. Perused the certified copy of the joint petitioner filed in the Civil Suit for mutual divorce and in paragraph-10 of the said petition, it is noted as follows: That, the GR. Case No. 265 of 2008 pending before the S.D.J.M., Bolangir and C.S. No. 71/2008 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bolangir and MAT Case No. 999/2008 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar and TRP(C) Nos. 83/2009 and 103/7.009 and WP. (C) No. 18428/2009 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack shall be disposed of in view of this joint application for divorce by mutual consent and the petitioner No. 2 shall cooperate and file supporting affidavit before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in Crl. Misc. Case No. 3819/2009 for quashing of the G.R. Case No. 265/2008 pending before the S.D.J.M., Bolangir against the petitioner No. 1. and his family members. Opposite party No. 2 has also filed a separate affidavit and in paragraph-3 thereof, it is noted as follows: That as per terms of compromise, I am not interested to proceed further with the criminal proceeding against the petitioners and I have no objection if the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner in the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 265 of 2008 is quashed by this Hon'ble Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering, the fact that the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 has been dissolved, I am of the opinion that continuance of the present criminal case would not be in the interest of the either party. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering, the fact that the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 has been dissolved, I am of the opinion that continuance of the present criminal case would not be in the interest of the either party. Therefore, keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and Another, I (2003) DMC 524 (SC), the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners in G.R. Case No. 265 of 2008 before the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir is quashed. Accordingly, the CRL M.C. is allowed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.