The inherent power to quash criminal proceedings cannot be exercised for serious offences against society, such as dowry harassment, even if the parties reach a settlement.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order of cognizance dated 3^rd March, 2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Parlakhemundi in G.R. Case No.391 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 498 -A/323/506/406/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act.

3. The background facts of the case are that Smt. Patrakanda Bijaylaxmi, W/o. Patrakanda Ram Prakash of village Kamarda under P.S. Seranga in the district of Gajapati lodged a written report before the IIC, Kasinagar to the effect that he got married to P. Ram Prakash of Kasinagar on 22^nd March, 2006 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Prior to her marriage her husband T. Ram Prakash along with his relatives including the Petitioner, the maternal uncle came to the house of the informant and demanded dowry and the same was upon negotiation was finalized.

However, it is alleged in the report that the parents of the informant had to give dowry under compulsion by the bridegroom side.

4. According to her, after the marriage she spent a couple of months along with her husband a blissful married life. Where after her husband, parents in law, sister in law, the maternal uncle D. Rama Rao, D. Bhima Raju, D. Krishna Rao insisted her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- more towards dowry from her parents and started ill treating her. It is further reported that she was not being shown proper behavior and was being scolded and also being given slap and continued to ill treat her by engaging her in the household work for about 14 to 15 hours and was being treated as a domestic help. She was not being given treatment for ailment even though she was suffering from fever and they also left her in the parental house under threat not to take her back in case she does not come with dowry, she would not be allowed to stay in the matrimonial house. On many occasion her father having paid Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- fell in the mercy of the in-laws to treat her properly but the in-laws instead of giving proper treatment continued to ill treat her and even to do away with her life and somehow she managed to escape from their clutch and took shelter in her parental house. It is also reported that on 20^th July, 2014 in the night at about 8 P.M. her husband and persons above named in a concerted manner with an intention to do away with her life and threatened not to disclose the fact to anybody else and reiterated their demand under the threat she would not be returned to the back she would not be allowed to continue in the matrimonial house until a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is paid. On the said day, they also pulled and pushed her and made her necked. On being raised outcry by her, the persons from neighbourhood arrived there and rescued her. On the basis of the report, the Police registered the case and took up the investigation. While the court in the same on receipt of the F.I.R. on 1^st August, 2014 took cognizance of the offence which is impugned herein.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is an old man of 61 years and happened to the matrimonial uncle of the informant, a permanent resident of Kasinagar whereas had spent his entire life while working under Andhra Pradesh and on retirement returned to Kasinagar. It is further submitted that there was absolutely no demand of dowry at the time of marriage, much less a demand from the Petitioner side and the Petitioner has absolutely no role at the time of marriage or subsequently thereafter except for the sake of maintaining the ritual as maternal uncle in law that he was present at the time of marriage. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner an application for divorce was presented be