Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 41 (ORI)

Suryanarayan Dash v. State of Orissa

2014-01-20

S.C.PARIJA

body2014
ORDER Sri G.N. Sethi, Advocate, enters appearance for the informant-opposite party No.2 and files Vakalatnama along with an affidavit in Court today, which be kept on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant-opposite party No.2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-petitioner praying for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 28.12.2012, in G.R. Case No. 472 of 2012, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur, arising out of Jajpur P.S. Case No. 86, dated 18.07.2012, under Sections 498-A/323/294/494/506/34, IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act against the present petitioner and other accused persons. The brief facts of the case is that the informant-opposite party No. 2, who is the wife of the petitioner lodged a written report on 18.07.2012 before the I.I.C. Jajpur Police station, which was registered as Jajpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2012, under Section 498-A/323/294/494/506/34, IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act, alleging therein that the petitioner and his family members tortured her physically and mentally, abused her in filthy languages, assaulted her by means of slaps and fist blows, threatened for dire consequences and drove her out of their house. It was further alleged that in her absence her husband (petitioner) got married to one Depali Panda. After registration of the F.I. R., the matter was investigated into by the police and charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and other accused persons before the learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur, in G.R. Case No. 472 of 2012, who vide order dated 28.12.2012 took cognizance of the offences against the accused persons including the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. are false and baseless and because of matrimonial dispute and/or misunderstanding, the informant lodged the impugned F.I.R. against her husband (petitioner) and his family members. It is submitted that the impugned F.I.R. had been lodged after eight years of marriage because of misunderstanding and on the intervention of the family members and well-wishers, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. It is further stated that after compromise of the matter between the parties, the petitioner and the informant are living together as husband and wife and leading a happy and conjugal life. It is further stated that after compromise of the matter between the parties, the petitioner and the informant are living together as husband and wife and leading a happy and conjugal life. It is accordingly submitted that as the impugned F.I.R. had been lodged because of misunderstanding between the informant and the petitioner and his family members and that in the meantime the matrimonial dispute has been resolved/compromised and the petitioner and informant are residing together and leading a happy conjugal life, no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of criminal proceeding against the present petitioner and his family members, especially when the chances of their ultimate convictions are bleak. The informant-opposite party No.2 in her affidavit has stated that she had lodged the impugned F.I.R. on hearing from the villagers that her husband (petitioner) had married to one Depali Panda of village Kuanrpur. Subsequently, on enquiry, she came to know that the said informant was wrong and her husband never married to Depali Panda. It is further stated that as the F.I.R. had been lodged by her due to misunderstanding and the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and/or settled, she does not want to continue with the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner and her family members any further. Considering the submission made and keeping in view the fact that the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the informant-opposite party No.2 has been amicably resolved and the parties are now residing peacefully and leading a happy married life, I find no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner and his family members, especially when the chances of their ultimate convictions are bleak. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 28.12.2012 as well as the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner and his family members in G.R. Case No. 472 of 2012, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur, arising out of Jajpur P.S. Case No. 86, dated 18.07.2012, under Sections 498-A/323/294/494/506/34 IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. CRLMC disposed of.