Allowed¶12

Sasmita Maharana v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Apr 2025CRLMC/815/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMC 815/2025, Orissa High Court, order 02.04.2025 (Sibo Sankar Mishra J.): quashing of FIR Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case 14/2019 / GR Case 378/2019 (Sections 498-A/313/323/506 IPC r/w Section 4 DP Act; 67/67-A IT Act in charge sheet) on joint petition of complainant-wife and accused in-laws after matrimonial reconciliation; Section 498-A IPC non-compoundable; relied on Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia AIR 1988 SC 709; FIR and consequential proceedings qua petitioners quashed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: FIR in Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No.14 of 2019 / G.R. Case No.378 of 2019 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners quashed; CRLMC disposed of. ¶12

Sasmita Maharana Vs State of Odisha — Dowry and Cruelty | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed: FIR in Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No.14 of 2019 / G.R. Case No.378 of 2019 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners quashed; CRLMC disposed of.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal prosecution arising from FIR in Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No.14 of 2019 / G.R. Case No.378 of 2019 (Sections 498-A/313/323/506 IPC r/w Section 4 DP Act) should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the informant-wife and the accused persons during the pendency of trial. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

Having regard to the settlement of the matrimonial dispute and the agreement filed by the parties, the Court was inclined to allow the quashing petition.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

In the fact scenario of the case, subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of trial would be a futile exercise.

¶10

Key takeaways

The case is squarely covered by the Supreme Court precedents in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia (AIR 1988 SC 709); accordingly the petition deserves merit.ratio¶10
The FIR in Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No.14 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.378 of 2019, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Women's Court), Jeypore, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.), CRLMC No.815 of 2025, order dated 02.04.2025 — Quashing of criminal prosecution on matrimonial settlement. FIR No.0014 dated 22.04.2019 of Jeypore Mahila P.S., registered as G.R. Case No.378 of 2019 at the instance of the wife (petitioner No.1) against her husband and in-laws (petitioner Nos.2 to 4) for offences under Sections 498-A/313/323/506 IPC r/w Section 4 DP Act; charge sheet filed 31.08.2019 and cognizance taken on 03.08.2019 (Annexure-4 recital also mentions Sections 67/67-A I.T. Act). Parties subsequently reconciled, resumed conjugal life and executed a joint agreement (Annexure-4); since Section 498-A IPC is non-compoundable, the wife and the accused jointly petitioned the High Court for quashing. Identity of petitioner Nos.1 & 2 verified through video conferencing with self-attested Aadhaar Cards; in-laws excused for ill health and represented through counsel. On the wife's confirmation that she had no remaining grievance, and with the Additional Government Advocate raising no legal impediment, the Court held continued trial futile, found the case squarely covered by Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, AIR 1988 SC 709, quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings qua the petitioners, and disposed of the CRLMC.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.815 of 2025

¶3

Sasmita Maharana & others …. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Deepankar Panigrahy, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opp. Party Mr.Bibekananda Nayak, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Order No.

ORDER

02.04.2025

02.

1. Heard.

2. At the instance of the petitioner No.1, the F.I.R. in connection with Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No.14 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.378 of 2019 came to be registered against the petitioners Nos.2 to 4 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/313/323/506 of the IPC r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Women’s Court), Jeypore.

¶16

3. The allegation against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

that the petitioner No.1 reported at the P.S. alleging that she got married to the petitioner No.2 of Village Ichhapur on 01.05.2018 at Jagannath Temple, Koraput. After their marriage, the petitioner No.1 stayed at her in-laws house for one month. She also stayed at Raipur from 01.05.2018 to 12.05.2018. In the meantime, her husband took her to a private clinic at Raipur and immunized three injections to her for which she became unconscious. When she regained her sense, she came to know that her husband got her miscarriage of pregnancy. The petitioner No.2 threatened her with dire consequence, if she discloses the fact of her miscarriage before anyone in her family. Hence, the F.I.R.

¶19

4. The dispute is arising out of a matrimonial discord. The present petition has been filed jointly by the informant and the accused persons seeking quashing of the entire criminal prosecution on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶20

5. After the investigation, the charge sheet has already been filed in the present case on 31.08.2019 and the trial is at an ascent stage. At this juncture, the parties have entered into the settlement.

¶21

6. The petitioners have entered into an agreement which has been placed on record as Annexure-4 to the petition They have inter alia stated in the joint agreement as under:

¶22

“AND WHEREAS, the 1^st Party Member is the legally married wife of the 2^nd Party No.1. Both the parties are

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

Hindu by religion and Maharana by Caste. Their was solemnized on 01.05.2018 as per their caste and custom in presence of their Badei (Maharana) Samaj at Jagannath Temple Koraput. Both of them were leading happy conjugal life.

¶25

That, the 2^nd Party No. 2 & 3 are the mother and brother of the 2^nd Party No.1 respectively. Due to some misunderstanding between the 1^st Party and 2^nd Party member relating to some small family matter, the 1^st Party Member lodged an FIR before the Jeypore Mahila P.S. and accordingly a case was registered against the 2^nd party No.1 vide FIR No.0014 dtd. 22.04.2019 U/s. 498-A, 313, 323, 506 of IPC and 4 DP Act, 1961. The said case was registered before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Div)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge (Women’s Court), Jeypore as GR Case No.378 of 2019. In the said case police submitted charge sheet against the 2^nd Party Members for the offence U/s. 498-A/323/506 of IPC R.W. Sec 4 D.P. Act & 67/67-A of I.T. Act and the said Hon’ble Court on 03.08.2019 took cognizance of the said offences.

¶26

That in the meanwhile with the intervention and advice of the well-wishers relatives of both the parties and Maharana Samaj, both the parties had amicably resolved their dispute and are leading further conjugal life happily and residing together. At this juncture both the parties are not willing to proceed with the case which is pending before the Court of Ld. Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge (Women’s Court), Jeypore. Since, the offence u/s. 498-A IPC is not compoundable, the 1^st party is not able to file any compromise petition before the Ld. Court below. On the other hand, they will pray before the Honourable High Court of Odisha to allow them to compromise the case.”

¶27

7. The petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are present in the Court today through video conferencing mode. They have filed the photocopies of their self-attested Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which have already been filed in the Court. The petitioner Nos.3 & 4 are the mother-in-law and the father-in-law. Learned

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

counsel for the petitioners submits that they may be excused for the non-appearance in the court in view of their ill health. He further submits that he has filed Vakalatnama for the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 as well, hence their presence may be accepted through counsel.

¶30

8. On the query from the Court, the petitioner No.1 submits that, she has already resumed her marital life with the petitioner No.2 and she has no further grievance against either the husband or the in-laws. Therefore, she does not want to proceed against the petitioners Nos.2 to 4 anymore. Hence, she joins hands with the other petitioners seeking quashing of the entire criminal prosecution.

¶31

9. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite party-State submits that since the dispute is arising out of a matrimonial discord and the parties have settled their dispute and they have also filed the agreement to that effect, there is no legal impediment in quashing the F.I.R.

¶32

10. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have settled their dispute and they have also filed the agreement in that regard, I am inclined to allow the present petition. In the fact scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of trial is destined to be a futile exercise. The present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303; B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others , reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition deserves merit.

¶35

11. Taking into consideration the aforementioned judgments, the facts of the case and submissions made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No.14 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.378 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Women’s Court), Jeypore and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed.

¶36

12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

¶37

Judge

¶38

Subhasis

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 03-Apr-2025 09:53:37

¶41

Page 5 of 5

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Entire criminal prosecution arising out of FIR in Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No.14 of 2019 / G.R. Case No.378 of 2019 (offences under Sections 498-A/313/323/506 IPC r/w Section 4 DP Act) pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Women's Court), Jeypore, sought to be quashed.¶4
Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Women's Court), Jeypore
Prior proceeding
At the instance of petitioner No.1 (the wife/informant), FIR was registered against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 (husband and in-laws) as Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No.14 of 2019, committed as G.R. Case No.378 of 2019, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A/313/323/506 IPC r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act; FIR No.0014 is dated 22.04.2019 per the Annexure-4 recital.¶2
Prior proceeding
After investigation, charge sheet filed on 31.08.2019; trial at an ascent (advanced) stage when the settlement petition was moved.¶5
Prior proceeding
Per the Annexure-4 recital, police charge sheeted petitioner Nos.2 to 4 for offences under Sections 498-A/323/506 IPC r/w Section 4 DP Act and Sections 67/67-A I.T. Act, and the Court below took cognizance on 03.08.2019.¶6
Prior proceeding
Petitioners executed a joint settlement agreement (placed on record as Annexure-4) recording reconciliation and resumption of conjugal life; since Section 498-A IPC is non-compoundable they could not compromise before the Court below and jointly prayed before the High Court.¶6
Prior proceeding
Joint petition (CRLMC No.815 of 2025) filed by the informant-wife together with the accused persons for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution on the ground of settlement.¶4
Prior proceeding
Identity verification: petitioner Nos.1 & 2 appeared through video conferencing with self-attested Aadhaar Cards; petitioner Nos.3 & 4 (mother-in-law and father-in-law) excused from appearance on grounds of ill health and represented through counsel holding their Vakalatnama.¶7
Prior proceeding
On query from the Court, petitioner No.1 confirmed she has resumed marital life with petitioner No.2, has no further grievance against the husband or in-laws, and joined the quashing petition.¶8

Sasmita Maharana v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasmita Maharana 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

Imran Khan Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Guru Vs State of Odisha

Raju Harijan@ Babaji Harijan Vs State of Odisha

Bijaya Bishi Vs State

Baman Behera Vs State of Odisha

Bauri Nayak Vs State of Odisha