Sita Kar Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Informant and learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶17

By filing the present application under Section 528 of BNSS, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Marine P.S. Case No.138 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2199 of 2024, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara. The above noted case was registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 85, 117(2), 118, 109, 3(5) of BNS read with Section 4 of D.P. Act.

¶18

Page 1 of 4.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the Petitioner No.7 is the husband of the opposite party No.2wife and that the other Petitioners are in-law family members. He further submitted that due to a matrimonial dispute there was a misunderstanding between the in-law family members and the opposite party No.2. As a result of which, the opposite party No.2 has lodged the present FIR making allegation against her husband as well as the in-law family members. He further submitted that in the meantime with the intervention of the relatives and well-wishers of both sides the matter has been amicably settled outside the Court and the Petitioner No.7 and the opposite party No.2 are living together and leading a happy conjugal life. He further contended that the opposite party No.2-wife is no more interested to proceed further in the present criminal case. In the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and they are staying together and leading a happy conjugal life, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the criminal case to continue as further continuance of the criminal proceeding is likely to create hindrance in their otherwise happy marital life. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the entire criminal proceeding be quashed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, while supporting the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioners, referred to the joint affidavit filed before this Court. By referring to the joint affidavit learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-wife stated before this Court that the dispute between the Petitioners and opposite party No.2 has been resolved amicably outside the Court and that now the parties are living peacefully. She further submitted that the Petitioner No.7 and the opposite party No.2 are living

¶21

Page 2 of 4.

¶22

together and leading a happy conjugal life. He further submitted that due to a misunderstanding the aforesaid case was registered at the instance of the opposite party No.2 and that in view of the subsequent development the opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed further in the present criminal case. As such, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submitted that the opposite party No.2 will have no objection in the event this Court quashes the entire criminal proceeding.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand referred to the report of the IIC, Marine P.S., Jamboo, Kendrapara dated 30.08.2025. A copy of such instruction was placed on record. On perusal of the report of the concerned IIC, Marine P.S., Jamboo, Kendrapara, it appears that pursuant to an order passed by this Court the IIC, Marine P.S., Jamboo, Kendrapara conducted an inquiry and in such inquiry he found that the Petitioner No.7 is residing with opposite party No.2 and they are leading happy conjugal life. It has also been indicated that the dispute between the two has been resolved with the intervention of the well-wishers and family members from both sides. The report further reveals that the injuries sustained by the opposite party No.2 are simple in nature. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that he will have no objection in the event this Court passes any appropriate order for securing the ends of justice.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further taking into consideration the subsequent development as well as the report of the IIC, Marine P.S., Jamboo, Kendrapara dated 30.08.2025, this Court found that though initially case was registered at the instance of the opposite party No.2 alleging dowry

¶25

Page 3 of 4.

¶26

related harassment and torture, however, in the meantime such dispute between both sides has been resolved amicably with the intervention of family members and well-wishers of both sides. It also appears from the report of the IIC, Marine P.S., Jamboo, Kendrapara that they are staying together and leading happy conjugal life. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, this Court is of the considered view that allowing the present criminal proceeding to continue further would lead to hindrance in the otherwise happy and peaceful conjugal life of the Petitioner No.7 and opposite party No.2. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the present case is a fit case to exercise its inherent power to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding arising out of Marine P.S. Case No.138 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2199 of 2024 is hereby quashed.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC application stands allowed.

¶28

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶29

Judge

¶30

S.K. Rout

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 16-Nov-2025 17:23:26 Page 4 of 4.

Sita Kar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Kar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita @ Santoshini Behera Vs State of Odisha

Bikash Chandra Swain Vs State of Odisha

Nabin Kumar Satapathy Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Odisha

Bijay Kumar Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Sanjaya Kumar Bhatta @ Tulia Vs State of Odisha