Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 708 (ORI)

Ramesh Chandra Pathy v. State of Orissa

2016-08-30

S.K.SAHOO

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 12.1.1999 of the learned J.M.F.C., Sorada, Ganjam passed in G.R. Case No. 73 of 1998 which arises out of Badagada P.S. Case No. 39 of 1998 in taking cognizance of offences under sections 498-A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is the husband of the opp.party no.2 and petitioner no.3 is the elder brother of the petitioner no.1. He further submits that the case arises out of matrimonial dispute and in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the opp. party no. 2 is now residing with the petitioner no.1 and they are leading a happy conjugal life and therefore, in view of such amicable settlement between the parties, continuance of criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process and therefore, to prevent abuse of the process and to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceeding should be quashed by invoking inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 supported the contentions raised by the petitioners and also filed an affidavit of the opposite party no.2 indicating therein that the matter has been amicably settled and that she and her husband (petitioner no.1) are residing together and leading a happy conjugal life. Learned counsel for the State has no serious objection to the prayer made by the petitioners. In case of B. S. Joshi -Vrs.-State of Haryana reported in (2003) Orissa Criminal Reports 99, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held follows:- “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. The hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” Considering the submissions made by the respective parties and taking into account the factum of compromise between the parties, particularly when the case arises out of a matrimonial dispute, in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of the process, I am inclined to exercise my inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 73 of 1998 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Saroda, Ganjam. Accordingly, CRLMC petition is allowed.