Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 314 (ORI)

Bulu @ Debabrata Khatua v. State of Orissa

2012-07-25

I.MAHANTY

body2012
JUDGMENT MAHANTY, J. The present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners to quash the criminal proceeding pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 248 of 2011 arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 29 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 753 of 2010 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack for commission of offence under Sections 498-A, 307, 406/34, IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 2. The facts of the case, in nutshell is that, petitioner No.1 married to opposite party No.2 on 27.2.2002 as per the Hindu rites and customs. Due to the dissension cropped up between the parties, opposite party No. 2 lodged an FIR before the IIC, Mahila Police Station, Cuttack, which was numbered as Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 29 of 2010 and after due investigation charge-sheet was fired against the petitioners in G.R. Case No. 753 of 2010 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack for commission of offence under Sections 498-A, 307, 406/34, IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and thereafter, the case was committed to the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special) Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 248 of 2011. During the pendency of the said criminal proceeding, though efforts were made by the friends and relatives of both the parties to settle the matter amicably, but the same yielded no result and both the parties finally agreed to settle the dispute by way of dissolution of marriage. Accordingly, both the petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 filed an application before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce. Thereafter, learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack by order dated 29.3.2012 passed a decree of divorce (Annexure-3). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserts that since both the petitioner No, 1 and opposite party No. 2 have agreed to approach the Courts for settlement of the criminal case and both parties agreed to co-operate each other to terminate the criminal proceeding, the petitioners have filed the present application for quashing the criminal proceeding initiated at the behest of the opposite party No. 2. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. B. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the informant opposite party No. 2 submits that the dispute between petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 has been resolved by way of a decree of divorce granted by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack and in pursuance of which Rs. 10 lakhs has been received by opposite party No. 2 towards permanent alimony and the opposite party No. 2 does not want to continue with the criminal proceeding. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court by order dated 2.7.2012 directed the I.I.C., Mahila P.S. to produce the informant-opposite party No. 2 before the learned A.C.J.M. (Spl.), Cuttack in the aforesaid S.T. Case to get her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. and the learned A.C.J.M. was also directed to send the said statement to this Court. 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court, learned A.C.J.M. (Spl.), Cuttack has forwarded the statement of the informant opposite party No.2, which was recorded on 12.7.2012. The informant opposite party No. 2 in her statement has vividly stated that she married the petitioner No. 1 as per the Hindu rites and customs on 27.11.2002 and as it was not practically possible on her part to remain with her husband due to family dispute and misunderstanding, she filed the case. She also stated that she had filed a case before the leaned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for mutual divorce, which was also decreed and her husband has paid Rs. 10 lakhs towards permanent alimony. She also stated that she has got no demand on her husband and she is not interested to continue with the criminal proceeding against her husband. She further stated that she has no abjection, if the aforesaid criminal case is dropped. 7. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others 12003 (II) OLR (SC) 2381 V. State of Haryana and others reported in (2003) 25 OCR (SC) 99, the Apex Court observed that quashing of the proceeding in respect of non-compoundable offences by the High Court is permissible in appropriate cases. The apex Court have clearly observed that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the High Court can quash the proceeding where the parties approach for compounding the offence even in a non-compoundable offence as in such situation, the chances of conviction becomes bleak. The apex Court have clearly observed that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the High Court can quash the proceeding where the parties approach for compounding the offence even in a non-compoundable offence as in such situation, the chances of conviction becomes bleak. In the cases of Sridhar Pani v. * 2003 (II) OLR 238 State of-Orissa and another,* (2003) 25 OCR 447 and Kanhu Behera v. State of Orissa reported in 2005 (II) OLR 386 , this Court has also taken the similar view. So, there is no doubt that inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceeding involving non-compoundable offences. 8. In the present case, no doubt the dispute between the petitioner No.1-husband and opposite party No. 2-wife has been resolved by way of a decree of divorce granted by the learned Judge, Family Court Cuttack and the opposite party No. 2 has already received Rs. 10 lakhs towards permanent alimony. That apart, the opposite party No. 2 has also given statement before the learned A.C.J.M. (Spl.) Cuttack, where the proceeding is pending, that she does not want to continue with the criminal proceeding against her husband. Therefore, in order to ensure that the parties, who fail to marry, are relieved of their obligations against each other in terms of the decree for divorce, this court in exercise of the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the judgment referred to supra feels that the aforesaid criminal proceeding should be quashed. 9. In the result the CRLMC is allowed and the Criminal proceeding pending before the learned A.C.J.M. (Spl.), Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 248 of 2011 is quashed. CRLMC allowed.