Quashed

Ramakanta Nanda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Feb 2024CRLMC/54/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa quashed an FIR registered under IPC Sections 498-A, 307, 506, etc., and the Dowry Prohibition Act, following an amicable settlement and divorce proceedings by mutual consent between the husband and wife, with the wife reiterating her stand against continuing prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR dated 14.12.2022 in Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No. 177 of 2022 and consequential criminal proceedings.

Ramakanta Nanda Vs State of Odisha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 54 of 2024

¶3

Ramakanta Nanda & others ….

¶4

Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate Along with Ms. L. Pradhan, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC
S.R. Subudhi, S. Mishra
(for op no.2)
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
20.02.2024
Order No.
05. 1. Heard.
2. The matter was taken up for hearing on 19.02.2024 and the

¶9

following order was passed:-

¶10

“1. Heard.

¶11

In the present petition the husband of the opposite party no.2 is not a petitioner. Therefore, Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior counsel seeks permission to implead the husband of the opposite party no.2 as a co-petitioner in the present case. The instructing counsel may do the needful during the course of the day and file vakalatnama for the said impleaded co-petitioner as well.

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

At the instance of opposite party no.2, the FIR dated 14.12.2022 in Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No. 177 of 2022 under Sections 498-A/294/341/307/506/406/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act has been registered against the petitioners. Petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 respectively.

¶14

The opposite party no.2 is present in the Court and being represented by her counsel. She has filed the selfattested copy of the Aadhaar Card to establish her identity, which is taken on record.

¶15

On the query from the Court, opposite party no.2 states that she has settled the dispute with her in-laws and decided to part away from her husband-petitioner no.3 and she has also received the permanent alimony from her husband. An application U/s. 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act has already been filed before the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar seeking divorce by mutual consent. On the basis of the settlement, she states that she does not want to proceed with the Criminal Case against her in-laws and her husband.

¶16

Mr. Maharaj, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that since the dispute is arising out of a matrimonial discord and the parties have settled their dispute and they moved application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent, there is no legal impediment for quashing the FIR.

¶17

The personal appearance of the opposite party no.2 is dispensed with permitting Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior counsel to implead the husband of the opposite party no.2 as the co-petitioner and file vakalatnama on his behalf.

¶18

Stand over to 20.02.2024.”

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

Pursuance to the aforementioned order, the petitioners

¶21

are present in the Court and being represented by their respective counsels. They have filed the self-attested photocopies of their Aadhar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record.

¶22

The opposite party no.2 has filed a counter affidavit dated

¶23

15.2.2024 inter alia at Paragraph-4 stating as under:-

¶24

“4) That in view of the amicable settlement between the partis, this Opposite Party No.2 is no longer interested to pursue this case and or not to proceed against the petitioners and my husband Satya Sundar Nanda. Hence prayed for quashing of the cognizance against them in C.T. Case No. 7700/2022 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and C.T. Case No. 350/2023 (arising out of C.T. Case No. 7700/2022) pending before the Learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar may be considered.”

¶25

The opposite party no.2 has now parted away from the

¶26

company of petitioner no.3. She has also received her permanent alimony to her satisfaction. Therefore, she does not want to proceed

¶27

with the prosecution against the petitioners. Hence, the opposite party no.2 and the petitioners conjointly pray before this Court for

¶28

quashing of the entire proceeding.

¶29

Mr. Maharaj, learned counsel for the State submits that since essentially this matter is arising out of a matrimonial discord

¶30

and parties have settled their dispute and the opposite party no.2 is

¶31

present in the Court and reiterated her stand, there is no legal

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

impediment for quashing the criminal prosecution against the

¶34

petitioners.

¶35

Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts and submission at the Bar, the FIR dated 14.12.2022 in Bhubaneswar

¶36

Mahila P.S. Case No. 177 of 2022 and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶37

The CRLMC is disposed of.

¶38

(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Monalisa

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Feb-2024 11:22:57

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Ramakanta Nanda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakanta Nanda 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

Tapan Behera Vs State of Odisha

Bunu@Saroj Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha