Santosh Kumar Barik @ Santosh Bariki Vs State of Odisha

2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Satyabadi P.S. Case No.174 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.415 of 2025 came to be registered against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 85/296/115(2)/117(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act., pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.-II, Puri.

¶15

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 28.05.2025 at about 9.10 P.M., the complainant reported at the P.S. that the accused persons tortured

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

her physically as well as mentally, abused in filthy language, voluntarily caused grievous hurt and threatened her with dire consequences in furtherance of their common intention demanding more dowry. Hence, the F.I.R.

¶18

4. The investigation of the present case is at the nascent stage. At this stage, the parties have entered into a settlement.

¶19

5. The opposite party no.2, who is the informant in the present case, is present in person before this Court today. The petitioner no.1 is the husband of the opposite party no.2 is also present in person in the Court today. They are identified by their respective counsels. They have also filed the self-attested photocopies of their Aadhaar cards, to establish their identity, which are taken on record.

¶20

6. Both the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.2 conjointly submit that due to the misunderstanding, the F.I.R. was registered and now, they have settled their dispute and residing peacefully. They have also filed the Joint Affidavit dated 12.01.2026 before this Court stating, inter alia , as under:

¶21

“ 3. That pending the litigation will cause undue prejudice to both and hamper the harmony between them. Both parties are good friends and due to the heat of the moment, the litigation was initiated. With the lapse of time and resolution of misunderstanding, it is in the best interest of both the parties to dismiss the proceedings to maintain their amicable relationship.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

4. That during pendency of the criminal proceeding at the intervention of the well-wishers and local gentries the matter has already amicable settled between the petitioners and the informant (opposite party-2). The Opposite party no.2 has no further grievance against the petitioner on the issue has been resolved for the all times to come.”

¶24

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has moved a memo on behalf of the petitioner nos.2 to 6 in the Court today seeking their exemption from appearing in the Court, inter alia , on the ground that the petitioner nos.2 to 6 are the family members of the petitioner no.1. They have been arrayed as accused in this case. Since the investigation in the present case is at the initial stage and the parents are the senior citizens and the petitioner no.2 is the sister-in-law, petitioner no.3 is the mother, petitioner no.4 is the father and the petitioner nos.5 & 6 are the sisters-inlaw, he seeks exemption. I am inclined to allow the memo and exempt the petitioner nos.2 to 6 from appearing before this Court today.

¶25

8. Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1-State submits that the parties have already settled their dispute and they have filed the joint affidavit to that effect. They have taken a conscious decision to put a quietus to the dispute in its entirety. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in quashing the F.I.R.

¶26

9. Regard being had to the nature of allegation made by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioners and

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

this being a matrimonial dispute arising out of a matrimonial discord and the fact that since the parties have settled their dispute and they have also file the joint affidavit to that effect, I am inclined to allow the present petition.

¶29

10. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Satyabadi P.S. Case No.174 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.415 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.-II, Puri and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed.

¶30

11. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶32

Subhasis

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:00:12

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Santosh Kumar Barik @ Santosh Bariki v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Barik @ Santosh Bariki 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

Durgesh Kumar Meena Vs State of Odisha

Gayana @ Ganesh Naik Vs State of Odisha

Niroj Kumar Bardhan Vs State of Odisha

Ram Sevak Roy Vs State of Odisha

Lapan Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Jatindra Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)