Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 406 (ORI)

Rajat Kumar Jena v. State Of Orissa

2019-06-17

S.K.SAHOO

body2019
JUDGMENT S.K. Sahooj, J. - Heard Mr. Surya Narayan Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arupananda Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the opposite party no.1 and Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. Since both the applications arise out of same case, on the consent of both the parties, those are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. In these two applications under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 the husband and other in laws of the opposite party no.2 Pravasini Jena have prayed to quash the criminal proceeding in S.T. Case No.273 of 2015 and S.T. Case No.142 of 2010 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack which arise out of Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.46 of 2008. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on account of matrimonial dispute between the parties, on the basis of the first information report submitted by opposite party no.2 Pravasini Jena before the Inspector in Charge, Sadar police station, Cuttack, Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.46 of 2008 was registered on 08.03.2008 under sections 498A/341/342/323/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and in the meantime, there has been amicable settlement between the parties and on a joint petition filed by the petitioner Rajat Kumar Jena and the informant-opposite party no.2 Pravasini Jena under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No.236 of 2014, there has been mutual divorce between them and it was settled between the parties that initiative would be taken to drop all the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of learned C.J.M. (Special), Cuttack. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that in view of the mutual statement between the parties, the opposite party no.2 Pravasini Jena is no more interested to proceed with the case. 6. Learned counsel for the State has also no serious objection as the case arises out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties which has already been settled. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the State has also no serious objection as the case arises out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties which has already been settled. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and since the case arises out of a matrimonial dispute which has already been settled and there has been mutual divorce between the petitioner Rajat Kumar Jena and the informant opposite party no.2 Pravasini Jena and the opposite party no.2 is no more interested to proceed against the petitioners, I am of the humble view that no fruitful result would come out if the proceeding is allowed to continue and therefore, in the interest of justice and in order to prevent abuse of process, invoking the inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 I am inclined to accept the prayer made in this applications and direct that the criminal proceeding in S.T. Case No.273 of 2015 and S.T. Case No.142 of 2010 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack stands quashed. 8. Accordingly, both the CRLMC applications are allowed.