Allowed

Lalit Mohan Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 May 2022CRLMC/3527/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the High Court of Orissa, a criminal proceeding against petitioners was quashed. The informant stated the case was registered due to misunderstanding and the parties had amicably settled the matter. Having received awarded alimony, the informant did not wish to press the matter, leading the court to quash the criminal case under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceeding pending against the Petitioners in Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.104 of 2017 is quashed.

Lalit Mohan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.3527 of 2019

¶3

Lalit mohan Sahoo and others

¶4

…. Petitioners Mr. Bidyadhar Mansingh, Advocate -versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and another

¶6

…. Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA

¶8

Order No. ORDER
14.05.2022
04. 1. This matter is taken up today in the 2 nd National Lok
Adalat.
2. Heard Mr. Bidyadhar Manasingh, learned counsel for
Petitioners.
3. Petitioner No.1-Lalit Mohan Sahoo and Informant,

¶9

Opposite Party No.2-Ms. Supriya Sahoo, appeared in persons in Court today and file their identity proof by furnishing xerox copy of Aadhar Cards, the same are kept on record.

¶10

She submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Due to misunderstanding, the case was registered at her instance. Accordingly, she submits that she does not want to press this matter. A copy of the judgment dated 03.01.2020, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, in Civil Proceeding No.683 of 2017 is produced before this Court, whereby the Informant as Petitioner had initiated a Civil Proceeding against the Petitioner No.1-Lalit

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

// 2 //

¶13

Mohan Sahu and in the said proceeding, learned Judge has been pleased to award permanent alimony of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) and the Informant who is present in Court today submits that she has already received the permanent alimony from the Petitioner No.1.

¶14

In such view of the matter and keeping in view the larger interest of justice and the fact that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) towards permanent alimony has already been received by the Informant, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding pending against the Petitioners in Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.104 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1974 of 2017, pending

¶15

in the court of learned S.D.J.M. Sadar, Cuttack is hereby quashed by exercising inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶16

CRLMC is accordingly allowed.

¶17

(A.K. Mohapatra, J.) 2^nd National Lok Adalat

¶18

U.K.Sahoo

¶19

Page 2 of 2

Lalit Mohan Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Mohan Sahoo 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

Kasturi Bisoi Vs State of Odisha

Krushna Chandra Swain Vs Pradeep Kumar Jena, I.A.S.

Prasanna Kumar Parhi Vs G.Mathi Vathanan, Principal Secy., H and Ud Dept.

Pravati Sahoo Vs Subash Swain

Bijaya Kumar Baral@Ranjan Vs State of Odisha

Anama@Sanjaya Kumar Baral Vs State of Odisha