Disposed

Tapan Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Feb 2024CRLMC/131/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal proceedings against a husband and his family for matrimonial offences were quashed after the wife filed an affidavit confirming she had settled the dispute with her in-laws and resumed marital life with Petitioner No.1, and the State counsel confirmed the settlement. The FIR and pending case were quashed to save the marriage.

What did the court decide?

FIR dated 30.06.2022 (Khuntuni P.S. Case No.142 of 2022) and C.T. Case No.338 of 2022 with consequential proceedings quashed.

Tapan Behera Vs State of Odisha — Dowry and Cruelty | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 131 OF 2024

¶3

Tapan Behera and others

¶4

…. Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. G. Muduli, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha and another Opposite Party(s) Mr. P. K. Maharaj, ASC Mr. P. Panigrahi, Adv. (for O.P.2)

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
20.02.2024
Order No.
01. 1. Heard.
2. At the instance of the Opposite Party No.2, the F.I.R. dated
30.06.2022 in Khuntuni P.S. Case No.142 of 2022 under Sections
498-A, 323, 307, 294, 506 and 34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act came to be registered against the
Petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the Opposite Party
No.2.

¶9

The Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 are present in the Court and being identified by their respective counsels. They have also filed the self-attested copies of their Aadhaar Cards before this Court to establish their identity, which are taken on record.

¶10

Page 1 of 2

¶11

The Opposite Party No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 06.02.2024 before this Court, which is taken on record. In the said affidavit she has stated that due to misunderstanding in the family, she has registered the F.I.R. against the Petitioners. However, she has now settled the dispute with her in-laws and started happily residing with her husband i.e. Petitioner No.1. Therefore, she does not want to proceed with the case.

¶12

Mr. Maharaj, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has also interacted with the Opposite Party No.2 and submits that indeed the parties have settled their dispute. In order to save their marital life, the prosecution launched against the Petitioners may be dropped.

¶13

Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts and submission at the Bar, the F.I.R. dated 30.06.2022 in C.T. Case No.338 of 2022 corresponding to Khuntuni P.S. Case No.142 of

¶14

2022 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Athgarh and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶15

The CRLMC is disposed of.

¶16

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Swarna Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-Feb-2024 19:39:31

¶19

Page 2 of 2

Tapan Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Behera 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

Felu@Ajaya Behera Vs State of Odisha

Prafulla Kumar Barik Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Akula Jata Vs State of Odisha

Mahendra Swain Vs State of Odisha

Bunu@Saroj Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Ramakanta Nanda Vs State of Odisha