Allowed

Gulam Mustafa Khan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Nov 2021CRLMC/645/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge quashed 2nd Information Officer's order under Section 482 CrPC. Court allowed quashing of GR case after compromise affidavit showed marital dispute was settled, marriage dissolved by Talak, and informants no longer wished to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1569 of 2015 arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.95 of 2015.

Gulam Mustafa Khan Vs State of Odisha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 645 of 2020

¶3

Gulam Mustafa Khan & Ors.

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Advocate

¶6

-Versus -

¶7

State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Parties

¶8

Ms. Sanjibani Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel. Mr. D. Das, Advocate (for O.P. No.2)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER_

09.11.2021

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

Heard Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sanjibani Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for opposite party no.2-informant. Also heard Gulam Mustafa Khan-petitioner and Amreen Zafar-opposite Party No.2, who have appeared through virtual mode.

¶17

The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioners with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance dated 26.08.2016 and also the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1569 of 2015 arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.95 of 2015 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., (Sadar), Cuttack.

¶18

The facts of the case are that the present opposite party No.2-informant lodged an F.I.R. before the Cuttack Mahila

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

P.S. alleging that she had married the informant on 27.01.2013 as per Muslim rites and customs and as per the demand, cash of Rs.4,00,000/-, gold ornaments and other household articles were given to her in-laws. Again her father-in-law demanded Rs.3,00,000/- from her father. When her father refused to comply, her in-laws started torturing her physically and mentally. It is alleged that the petitioner no.5 tried to outrage her modesty and while she was staying at Hyderabad, she was assaulted by her husband and he also attempted to kill her. Therefore, she filed the FIR against the petitioners.

¶22

A compromise affidavit has been filed being sworn by the opposite party no.2- Amreen Zafar stating that due to matrimonial dispute and misunderstanding between her and the petitioner no.1, their marital life could not survive and during pendency of this case, their marriage has been dissolved by way of Talak with effect from 01.01.2016 as per Mohammedan Law. In the meantime, the petitioner no.1 has married another lady and they are blessed with a male child. It is further stated that the opposite party no.1 has decided not to proceed further in the present case as well as in the criminal case pending against the petitioners, as the matter has already been settled between them.

¶23

On the above basis, it is submitted that as the proceeding had been initiated due to misunderstanding and family dispute, but has since been resolved amicably as also the fact that the concerned parties do not wish to continue

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

with the proceeding, the same may be quashed.

¶27

A perusal of the compromise affidavit filed by the informant-opposite party no.2 reveals that she does not want to proceed in the case further. She has also no grievance against the petitioners in this case. The opposite party no.2 being asked, fully supported the contents of the affidavit filed by her stating that the dispute between her and her former husband has been settled amicably and that she does not wish to proceed further in the case.

¶28

Considering the submissions made as noted above and the compromise affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2, it is evident that the dispute between them has been amicably settled. Under such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, especially when the chance of conviction in the said case is bleak.

¶29

This Court is therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners. The proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1569 of 2015 arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.95 of 2015 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., (Sadar), Cuttack is hereby quashed

¶30

Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.

¶31

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶32

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶33

A.K. Rana

¶34

Page 3 of 3

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Gulam Mustafa Khan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Mustafa Khan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupeli Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Atala Kumar Das @ Atal Das Vs State of Odisha

Gopinath Bhatra Vs State of Odisha

Hazi Khan Vs State of Odisha

Kamal Lochan Jena Vs State of Odisha

Ashish Kumar Mallik Vs State of Odisha