Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 619 (ORI)

Harekrushna Majhi v. State of Orissa

2016-08-09

S.K.SAHOO

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. This is an application filed by the petitioner Harekrushna Majhi for quashing the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.690 of 2003 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara arising out of Konark P.S. Case No. 103 of 2003 for commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A/494/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The case was instituted on the First Information Report lodged by the opposite party no.2 Rajalaxmi Patra @ Majhi before the Inspector in Charge, Konark Police Station on 14.11.2003. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and opposite party no.2 is not interested to proceed with the case and since the case arises out of a matrimonial dispute, in the interest of justice, invoking the power under section 482 Cr.P.C., the proceeding should be quashed. 3. The opposite party no.2 has filed an affidavit indicating therein that the petitioner filed a divorce case before the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela and it was decreed in his favour subject to payment of Rs.70,000./- to the opposite party no.2 and that order was challenged by the opposite party no.2 before this Court in M.A.T.A. No. 17 of 2002 and in the meantime at the instance of the family members, well wishers, it was decided that the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 would live separately and the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in addition to sum of Rs. 70,000/- as was awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela towards permanent alimony. It is further stated in the affidavit that due to ill feeling and misunderstanding between the parties, the case was instituted and since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and both the parties have agreed to live separately, the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case. 4. It is further stated in the affidavit that due to ill feeling and misunderstanding between the parties, the case was instituted and since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and both the parties have agreed to live separately, the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case. 4. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the affidavit filed by opposite party no.2, it is clear that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and since the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute and the opposite party no.2 is not interested to proceed with the matter and she has received the amount towards permanent alimony, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi -Vrs.-State of Haryana reported in (2003) 25 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 99 and Gold Quest International Private Limited – Vrs.-The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2014) 59 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 593, I am inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner and invoking the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C., the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 690 of 2003 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara stands quashed. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed.