Allowed

Soumendra Singh v. State

Orissa HC27 Jun 2022CRLMC/5671/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a domestic violence case. Ruled that mutual divorce decree terms requiring withdrawal of connected cases allowed quashing despite non-compoundability of offences and wife's absence, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Criminal prosecution in G.R. Case No.298 of 2012 initiated regarding Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.33 of 2012 is quashed.

Soumendra Singh Vs State — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.5671 of 2014

¶3

Soumendra Singh & others

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

Order No.

ORDER 27.06.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

It appears that notice was issued to Opposite Party No.2 by registered post with A.D. but the A.D. having not been returned, notice to Opposite Party No.2 be treated as sufficient in view of the provisions contained in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.

¶14

A memo along with the certified copy of the petition vide C.P No.531 of 2014 along with the order passed therein filed in Court today by the learned counsel for the Petitioners be kept on record.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. None appears for the Opposite Party No.2.

¶16

5 . This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioners to quash the impugned order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack in G.R. Case

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

No.298 of 2012 arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.33 of 2012 wherein the learned J.M.F.C. has taken cognizance under Sections 498-A/323/294/506/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act.

¶20

6 . As it appears the Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 have dissolved their marital tie by a mutual decree of divorce passed in C.P No.531 of 2014 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. In the said mutual decree of divorce, one of the terms is that the parties to the said proceeding thereafter shall withdraw connected cases pending in different courts. However, the wife thereafter had not appeared in this case and not cooperated for withdrawal of the same nor made an objection for quashment of the prosecution prayed in this case.

¶21

No doubt, the aforesaid is a term of the compromise and some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature. But noncompoundability of an offence does not stand on the way of the Court for quashment of the proceeding in appropriate cases in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C particularly in view of the compromise as held by the apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others vrs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , so also in the similar facts and circumstances when the wife did not appear, the apex Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal vrs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 299 have quashed the criminal proceeding.

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court, even if the wife has not appeared, this Court is of the view that allowing the criminal prosecution hereinafter against the Petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, this Court, in exercise of the power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, quashes the criminal prosecution initiated against the Petitioners at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2 in G.R. Case No.298 of 2012 arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.33 of 2012 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack. The court in seisin over the matter shall do well to close the proceeding on production of the certified copy of the same.

¶25

With the aforesaid order, this Criminal Misc. Case stands disposed of being allowed.

¶26

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (S. Pujahari) Judge

¶27

PKS

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Soumendra Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soumendra Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bidyut Prava Lenka Vs Akhil Ku.Podar

Santosh Ku.Mishra Vs State

Santosh Ku.Mishra Vs State

Babaji Jena Vs State of Odisha

Ramakanta Padhi Vs State

Amitesh Ranjan Vs Parameswar K.Ray