Allowed

Amit Sharma v. State

Orissa HC22 Apr 2022CRLMC/512/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. The court allowed the application holding that since the parties obtained a decree of mutual divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, no purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending. Consequently, the order of cognizance and the proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order of cognizance dated 1st July, 2010 in C.T. Case No.2107 of 2008 and quashing of the proceedings pending before the court below.

Amit Sharma Vs State — Dowry and Cruelty | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.512 of 2011

¶3

Amit Sharma and another

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. Bijaya Ku. Ragada, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER 22.04.2022

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶15

Present application under 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 1^st July, 2010 passed in C.T. Case No.2107 of 2008 registered under Section(s) 498-A and 323 read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur.

¶16

Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there has been a settlement arrived at between the parties, namely, petitioner No.1 and opposite party No.2 as both have obtained a decree of mutual divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act by approaching the Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No.1089 of 2009. While contending so, Mr. Ragada has referred to Annexure-5 which is the order passed in C.P.

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

No.1089 of 2009 whereby marriage between the parties has been dissolved on mutual consent.

¶19

In fact, on the last occasion, the petitioners directed to file postal requisites for issuance of notice to opposite party No.2 through registered post with AD. However, Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners states that whereabouts of opposite party No.2 is not known as she is no more residing in the address mentioned. It is submitted that opposite party No.2 after marriage has shifted to some other State and therefore, her address is not available or able to be procured. It is lastly submitted that in view of the order of the Family Court in C.P. No.1089 of 2009 and dissolution of marriage which was solemnized on 1^st July, 2007 between petitioner No.1 and opposite party No.2 which was on consent in terms of Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, no purpose would be served to have the proceeding continued before the court below and therefore, the order of cognizance under Annexure-1 should be set aside and proceeding in C.T. No.2107 of 2008 quashed.

¶20

On consideration of the fact that the parties have had mutual divorce in the year 2010 which is supported by a copy of the order of Family Court dated 18^th May, 2010 in C.P. No.1089 of 2009 which clearly states that the marriage between them was dissolved by decree of divorce on mutual consent and recording the submission of Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners that opposite party No.2 has remarried and shifted her residence to some other place out of State, the Court is of the considered view that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, no purpose would really be served by keeping the proceeding pending before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur.

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

For the reasons as aforesaid, the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed and the order of cognizance dated 1^st July, 2010 passed in C.T. Case No.2107 of 2008 vide Annexure-1 and also proceeding pending before the court below is hereby quashed.

¶23

The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge

¶25

TUDU

Amit Sharma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Sharma v. State

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

Kulu@ Rashmiranjan Gochhayat Vs State of Odisha

Krupasindhu Padhi Vs Pradip Ku.Mohanty

Birendra Ku.Sahoo Vs State

Harihar Giri Vs Saraswati Giri

Chandrakanta Khandai Vs State

Lilabati Tripathy Vs State