Swarnalata Das Vs State of Odisha

By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Hinjilicut, Ganjam in U.C. Case No.11 of 2018 corresponding to Hinjili P.S. Case No.133 of 2017 and G.R. Case No.109 of 2017 and to allow the Petitioner to represent through her counsel.

¶15

While the aforesaid prayer was pending disposal before this Court, the Petitioner moved a joint affidavit sworn by the Petitioner and Opposite Party wherein the Parties have agreed to settle the dispute in connection with

¶16

U.C. Case No.11 of 2018 arising out of 1CC Case No.13 of 2017 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Hinjilcut, Ganjam.

¶17

By virtue of the order dated 31.07.2025, both the Parties i.e. the Petitioner namely Swarnalata Das and the Opposite Party No.2 namely Niranjan Das appeared in person before this Court.

¶18

On being enquired, the Petitioner submits that the matter in dispute has since been compromised between the Parties and they do not want to proceed further in connection with any matter standing before any court of law.

¶19

Perused the joint affidavit dated 08.07.2025, wherein at Paragraph No.7, it is agreed by the Parties i.e. the Opposite Party No.2 do not want to proceed in the case relating to Hinjili P.S. Case No.133 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.109 of 2017 arising out of 1CC Case No.13 of 2017 turned to U.C. No.11 of 2018 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Hinjilicut, Ganjam under Section 494 IPC. As seen from the aforesaid affidavit, the MATA No.219 of 2024 has also been disposed of pursuant

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

to the joint affidavit entered into between the Parties in compromise filed herein.

¶22

The background facts of the case are that the Opposite Party No.2 namely Niranjan Das lodged a complaint before the learned J.M.F.C., Hinjilicut, Ganjam against Smt. Swarnalata Das praying the court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 420/494 IPC against her. The said complaint was registered as 1CC No.13 of 2017 and the learned court directed the Police to investigate into the matter and accordingly, upon registration of the FIR in connection with Hinjili P.S. Case No.133 of 2017, the Police registered the case and took up investigation. The Police, however, submitted the final report on 31.12.2017 before the learned Magistrate and accordingly, the Informant i.e. Niranjan Das was issued with notice enabling him an opportunity to file protest petition. In absence of the protest petition, the learned Magistrate, however, took cognizance of the offence under Section 494 IPC on 30.01.2018 and issued summons to the Petitioner to appear before the court. The Petitioner instead of appearing in person moved an application before the learned Magistrate under Section 205 Cr.P.C to dispense with her personal appearance and to be represented through

¶23

Page 3 of 6

¶24

her lawyer. The learned Magistrate, having heard the Parties declined to grant the aforesaid prayer of the Petitioner, whereupon, the Petitioner moved in the present CRLMC and while the matter stood thus, the aforesaid joint affidavit has been filed by the Parties.

¶25

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held that in matrimonial matter it becomes duty of the Court to consider the special feature of a case where the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose would be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue in the court and while taking into consideration the special facts should quash the proceedings. The aforesaid judgment was followed in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1. However, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2010) 15 SCC 118 , a two judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court doubted the correctness of these decisions including one in B.S. Joshi’s case (Supra) and the matter was referred to a three judges Bench, whereupon, the three judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10

¶26

Page 4 of 6

¶27

SCC 303 considered the question referred to it and reiterated the ratio of the judgment in B.S. Joshi’s Case (Supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that cases predominantly with civil flavour particularly offences like transaction or the offences arising out of matrimony particularly relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes, where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court, in these category of cases, the High Court should quash the criminal proceedings, if, the High Court is of the opinion that as a result of the compromise between the parties, possibility of conviction is remote or bleak.

¶28

The instant case as originally filed by the Opposite Party No.2, Niranjan Das against the Petitioner is one under Section 494 IPC, which deals with “Marrying again during the life time of a husband or wife”. Case record reveals that the Parties are in issues in matrimony and the present proceeding pending before the learned Magistrate does emanates there from. The compromise reached between the duly recognized by this Court in allowing the Parties to resolve their dispute pending in MATA No.219 of 2024 by virtue of the order of this Court dated 08.07.2025 on the

¶29

Page 5 of 6

¶30

basis of the joint affidavit filed herein clearly speaks that the Parties in matrimony have ended their litigation. Consequently, no fruitful purpose would be served, if the Parties are allowed to proceed in the proceeding pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Hinjilicut, Ganjam.

¶31

This Court, accordingly, finds it worth to prevent the abuse of process of law and feels it proper to quash the proceeding in U.C. No.11 of 2018 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Hinjilicut, Ganjam, arising out of Hinjili P.S. Case No.133 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No.109 of 2017, arising out of 1CC Case No.13 of 2017.

¶32

In the result, the proceeding in U.C. No.11 of 2018 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Hinjilicut, Ganjam, arising out of Hinjili P.S. Case No.133 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No.109 of 2017, arising out of 1CC Case No.13 of 2017 stands quashed.

¶33

The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(Chittaranjan Dash)

¶35

Judge

¶36

Bijay Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 08-Aug-2025 11:39:34

¶38

Page 6 of 6

Swarnalata Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swarnalata Das 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradipta Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Saraswati Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Jitendra Pradhan Vs State

Debi Pr.Bindhani Vs State of Orissa

Kishor Kumar Kshatri Vs State of Odisha

Krupasindhu Mishra Vs Dhukhishyam Bisi