K.Srinivas Rao Vs State of Odisha

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the dispute between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 has been amicably settled and both parties have decided to end all litigations. Pursuant to the settlement and filing of an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, Opposite Party No.2 has withdrawn the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in CRP No.29 of 2020 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-May-2026 20:12:32

¶21

4. It is further submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, vide order in C.P. No.889 of 2025, has allowed the petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and dissolved the marriage

¶22

Page 1 of 5

¶23

solemnized on 06.06.2015, recording payment of Rs.8,50,000/- towards permanent alimony to Opposite Party No.2.

¶24

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the parties are now residing separately and Opposite Party No.2 does not wish to pursue the criminal proceeding any further. Accordingly, prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding.

¶25

6. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 supports the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and confirms that the dispute has been amicably settled and that Opposite Party No.2 has no objection if the criminal proceeding is quashed.

¶26

7. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the prayer of the learned counsel for the Petitioner so also learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

¶27

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has filed the compromise affidavit of the Petitioner dated 07.05.2026, which is taken on record. The relevant portion reads as under:

¶28

“2. That, due to certain discord and misunderstanding the Opposite Party No-2 had lodged this criminal case against me with various vague charges and after though allegations but in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled between us and that we both have mutually agreed to set ways apart by ending all the litigations.

¶29

3. That, pursuant to our compromise I and Opposite Party No-2, both filed an application U/S 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce before the learned Judge Family Court, Cuttack vide C.P. No-889/2025 and accordingly the same was allowed on dtd.04-02-2026 and

¶30

Page 2 of 5

¶31

our marriage which was solemnized on dtd.06-06-2015 was finally dissolved.

¶32

4. That, in view of such settlement and compromise, the family members and well wishers of both the parties decided that in lieu of payment of permanent alimony by me to the Opposite Party No-2, she will have no further grievance and will have to withdraw the maintenance case and the present criminal case which she had initiated against me .”

¶33

9. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has filed the compromise affidavit of Opposite Party No.2 dated 07.05.2026, which is taken on record. The relevant portion reads as under:

¶34

“3. That, due to certain discord and misunderstanding I had lodged this criminal case against the Petitioner but in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled between us and we both have mutually agreed to set our ways apart by ending all the litigations.

¶35

4. That, pursuant to our compromise I and Petitioner, both filed an application U/S 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce before the learned Judge Family Court, Cuttack vide C.P. No-889/2025 and accordingly the same was allowed on dtd.04-02-2026 and our marriage which was solemnized on dtd.06-06-2015 was dissolved finally.

¶36

5. That, in view of aforesaid amicable settlement and compromise after getting the permanent alimony, have no grievance against the Petitioner and I do not want to proceed with this criminal case any further and hence if the present criminal proceeding against the petitioner is quashed/dropped I have no objection and I will be in no way prejudiced.”

¶37

Page 3 of 5

¶38

10. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another¹ , has held that in cases categorically appropriate involving

¶39

matrimonial disputes or disputes overwhelmingly of a personal and private nature, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), may quash criminal proceedings where the parties have amicably settled their disputes and continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of Court and defeat the ends of justice.

¶40

11. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.² also observed that the object of introducing Section 498-A IPC was to prevent cruelty to a married woman, but where the matrimonial dispute has been settled amicably and the parties have decided to part ways peacefully, continuance of criminal proceedings would not serve any useful purpose and the same can be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶41

12. In the present case, it appears that the disputes between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 arose out of matrimonial discord. The parties have now amicably settled all their disputes and have dissolved their marriage by a decree of mutual divorce passed under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act in C.P. No.889 of 2025 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. Opposite Party No.2 has already received permanent alimony amounting to Rs.8,50,000/- and has unequivocally stated through affidavit that she has no subsisting

¶42

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶43

2 (2003) 4 SCC 675

¶44

Page 4 of 5

¶45

grievance against the Petitioner and does not wish to proceed with the criminal case any further.

¶46

13. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the decree of divorce already passed, withdrawal of the maintenance proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuance of the criminal proceeding would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

¶47

14. Accordingly, the application stands allowed. The order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack in Choudwar P.S. Case No.208 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1202 of 2018 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack, along with the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioner, is hereby quashed.

¶48

15. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶49

16. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶50

17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

¶51

18. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶52

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶53

Sipun