Ramani Ranjan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.246 of 2025

1) Ramani Ranjan Sahoo ..... Petitioners 2) Santilata Sahoo Represented By Adv. - 3) Mohan Kumar Sahu Alok Kumar Panda 4) Mamata Sahu -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opp. Parties 2) Mamata Pradhan Represented By Adv. – S.K. Parhi, A.S.C.

¶3

Soubhagya Kumar Dash, Adv. for O.P. No.2

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

22.09.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶10

Mr.Soubhagya Kumar Dash, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a vakalatnama in Court today and the same be kept on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶12

By filing the present application under Section 528 of the BNSS the Petitioners seek to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case

¶13

Page 1 of 4.

¶14

No.107 of 2023 which arises out of Chhendipada P.S. Case No.53 of 2023, now pending before the court of the learned JMFC, Chhendipada.

¶15

The abovenoted case was registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of DP Act.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the Petitioner No.1 is the husband of Opposite Party No.2 and Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are in-laws of the Opposite Party No.2. He further contended that due to a matrimonial discord between the Petitioner No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2, the abovenoted criminal case was instituted at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2. He further submitted that the informant has not sustained any injury. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that in the meantime with the intervention of the well-wishers and relatives of both sides, the matter has been amicably resolved and that the Petitioner No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2 are living together as has husband and wife and maintaining a cordially relationship. In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 is no more interested to continue to the present criminal case.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Informant on the other hand supported a stand taken by the learned counsel for the Petitioners with regard to the subsequent development. He further submitted that an affidavit filed which was sworn by the Opposite Party No.2 before the Oath Commission of this Court. Referring to the aforesaid affidavit, learned counsel for the Informant submitted

¶18

Page 2 of 4.

¶19

that since the Petitioner No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2 have resumed their matrimonial relationship and they are living staying together and have a cordially relationship, therefore, further continuance of the present proceeding would not serve the interest of justice. Moreover, the continuance of the present case would be an abuse of process of law and wastage of valuable time of this Court. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State contended that on perusal of the affidavit that the matter has been amicably resolved. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that he will have no objection in the event this Court passes any appropriate order keeping in view the fact that the criminal case arises out of a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, wherein the in-laws have been implicated and such dispute has been amicably resolved subsequently.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as subsequent development, further taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-wife in the affidavit filed in court today sworn before the Oath Commission of this Court, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the F.I.R. pertains to a matrimonial dispute between the Petitioner No.1-husband and the Opposite Party No.2-wife. Since the dispute has already been resolved amicably and that both are staying together as husband and wife and have a cordially relationship, this Court is of the

¶22

Page 3 of 4.

¶23

view that further continuance of the present criminal proceeding would not serve the interest of justice. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.107 of 2023 which arises out of Chhendipada P.S. Case No.53 of 2023, pending before the court of the learned JMFC, Chhendipada is hereby quashed.

¶24

With the aforesaid observation/ directions, the CRLMC stands disposed of.

¶25

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶26

Anil

¶27

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4.

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Sep-2025 15:30:26

Ramani Ranjan Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramani Ranjan Sahoo 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

Mukunda Hantal Vs State of Odisha

Dusmanta Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Gautam Kumar V.K. Burra Vs Shaik Gousia Begum

State Vs Manoj Ku.Singh

State of Orissa Vs Sirapani Modi

State of Orissa Vs Bharini Pattnaik