Husband sought quashing of a dowry-related FIR against him. The parties had settled their matrimonial dispute; the wife withdrew her domestic violence case and they applied for divorce by mutual consent. The High Court quashed the criminal case and consequential proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.74 of 2024
Karunakar Mahapatra ..……. Petitioner
Mr. K.C. Rajguru Mohapatra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa & another ..……. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Maharaj, Additional Standing Counsel (For O.P. No.1)
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
02.02.2024
Order No. 01. 1. The petitioner is the husband of opposite party no.2. Due to the matrimonial discord, the F.I.R. in connection with Khandagiri P.S. Case No.66 of 2022 for the offences under Sections-498-A/341/323/294/506/34 IPC r/w Section-4 of the D.P. Act corresponding to C.T. Case No.879 of 2022 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C.-V, Bhubaneswar was registered against the petitioner by the opposite party no.2.
2. The petitioner and the opposite party no.2 have now settled their dispute and decided to part away. Accordingly, the proceeding initiated by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act has already been withdrawn. The parties have also applied for divorce
by mutual consent under Section-13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2
3. The opposite party no.2 has filed an affidavit dated 19.01.2024 which is taken on record. She is represented by Mr. K.K. Sahoo, Advocate who has filed the Vakalatnama. Both the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 are present in Court today. They are being identified by their respective counsels. They have filed copies of their self-attested Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record.
4. Mr. Maharaj, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the
State submits that the dispute is primarily a matrimonial dispute and the parties have settled their dispute. As per the settlement terms the opposite party no.2 has already acted upon and withdrawn the D.V. case and they have applied for divorce by mutual consent, therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the F.I.R. in subject.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned counsel at the Bar, C.T. Case No.879 of 2022 arising out of Khandagiri P.S. Case No.66 of 2022 for the offences under Sections-498-A/ 341/ 323/ 294/506/406 IPC r/w Section-4 of the D.P. Act pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C.-V, Bhubaneswar and the consequential proceeding arising therefrom are quashed.
6. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 04-Feb-2024 13:19:52
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings arising from a settled matrimonial dispute should be quashed.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Karunakar Mahapatra
State of Orissa
Opposite Party No.2 (wife of petitioner)
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
