The High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where reconciliation occurs, affirming that pursuing litigation should not counterproductive to family harmony.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of the present application, the Petitioners seek to quash the order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the learned JMFC, Pattamundai in G.R. Case No.357 of 2014, which was initiated at the instance of the Opposite Party-wife against the Petitioners.

2. The background facts of the case are that the Petitioners, being the husband and his relatives, were charge-sheeted in connection with G.R. Case No.357 of 2014, arising out of Pattamundai P.S. Case No.237 of 2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/341/323/294/406/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Opposite Party No.2 lodged a complaint against the Petitioners before the I.I.C., Pattamundai, whereupon Pattamundai P.S. Case No.237 of 2014 was registered, and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted. As per the allegations, Opposite Party No.2 married Petitioner No.1 on 24.07.2011, and at the time of marriage, in compliance with the demand of the Petitioners, a cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with ornaments and other articles was given to the family of the bridegroom. After the marriage, Petitioner No.1 along with his relatives allegedly subjected Opposite Party No.2 to cruelty demanding further dowry, and on account of non-fulfillment of such demand, they attempted to kill her by pouring hot water on her body and subsequently drove her out of the matrimonial home, compelling her to lodge the report.

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that subsequently, the marital dispute between the parties was amicably settled through mediation. In terms of the said settlement, both Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2, being husband and wife, agreed to put an end to all litigations. Acting upon such settlement, they filed a joint petition for compromise before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara in Criminal Proceeding No.824 of 2014, which had been initiated by Opposite Party No.2 seeking maintenance. Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No.1 paid a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- to Opposite Party No.2 towards her permanent alimony and an additional sum of Rs.23,505/- by way of Bank Draft towards her dower and maintenance for the iddat period.

4. By order dated 18.04.2017, the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara disposed of the said proceeding, recording the fact of receipt of Rs.3,83,505/- by Opposite Party No.2. It was also clearly stated in the joint petition that Opposite Party No.2 (informant) would withdraw the criminal case initiated by her under Section 498-A IPC and allied offences. The order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara in Criminal Proceeding No.824 of 2014 has been annexed as Annexure-4.

5. According to learned counsel for the Petitioners, in view of the compromise having been duly acted upon, the continuation of the criminal proceeding pending before the learned JMFC, Pattamundai in connection with Pattamundai P.S. Case No.237 of 2014 would serve no fruitful purpose and, therefore, deserves to be quashed.

6. Despite service of notice, Opposite Party No.2 did not appear. This Court has perused the joint petition filed by Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 before the learned Judge, Family Court in Criminal Proceeding No.824 of 2014, as well as the order passed therein. It is evident that the proceeding initiated at the behest of Opposite Pa