Sandesh K. Srinivas vs State of Odisha

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Ori) 440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SAVITRI RATHO, J.
Sandesh K. Srinivas - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha - Opposite Party
CRLMC No. 5266 of 2023
Decided On : 26-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manas Ranjan Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Smruti Ranjan Rout, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel, Mr. Sriram Krishna Jajodia, Advocate

Important Points

The High Court can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes if the parties have divorced and the informant does not wish to proceed, to prevent abuse of process and serve the ends of justice.

Subject

Criminal Law - Matrimonial Disputes

Act Referred

INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.294, S.307, S.323, S.341, S.498, S.506
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.482

Headnote

(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 498-A, 323, 294, 307, and 506 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Petition for quashing filed as the informant does not wish to proceed - Marriage dissolved, parties leading separate lives and no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings - Tribunal exercised inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC based on Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 1, 5, 13, and 15)

(B) Judicial precedents - The Supreme Court has held that in cases of matrimonial disputes, where divorce occurred and the couple has settled into their lives, continuing criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law. (Para 8)

(C) The High Court should ensure that the settlement is achieved without pressure or coercion, taking into cognizance the nature and gravity of the offences. (Paras 10 and 12)

Table of Content
1. marriage and subsequent criminal allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments for quashing based on divorce. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. judicial precedents on quashing matrimonial disputes. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. inherent powers of the high court in quashing. (Para 12 , 13)
5. conclusion on quashing gr proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

Savitri Ratho, J.

This CRLMC has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.04.2018 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 341 , 498-A, 323, 294, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘ IPC ’) against the Petitioner as well as for quashing the entire proceedings in connection with Markatnagar P.S. Case No.28 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No.299 of 2018 which is now pending in the Court of the learned JMFC-1 (Cog. Taking), Cuttack.

BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE

2. The marriage of the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 was solemnized on 18.11.2016 as per Hindu rites and customs in Mukambika Temple, Kullur Mangalore. It was subsequently registered before the Marriage Office, Puttur, Karnataka. On 16.02.2018, the Opposite Party No.2 lodged an FIR before the Markatnagar Police Station against the Petitioner and Markatnagar PS Case No.28 of 2018, corresponding to GR Case No.299 of 2018 in the file of the learned SDJM, Cuttack, was registered for commission of offences under Sections 341 , 498(A), 494, 323, 279, 307 and 506 of the IPC read with Section 4 of DP Act against the Petitioner.

3. After submission of charge-sheet, cognizance of offences under Sections 341 , 498-A, 323, 294, 307 and 506 of the IPC has been taken against the Petitioner on 21.04.2018 by the learned SDJM, Cuttack. This case is now pending in the Court of the learned JMFC-1 (Cog. Taking), Cuttack.

SUBMISSIONS

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed in C.P. Case No.90 of 2018.

5. Mr. M.R.Nayak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.R. Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that after the marriage between the parties by Family Court, Cuttack stood dissolved vide judgment dated 18.12.2020 in C.P. No.90 of 2018, the parties are leading their separate lives and the informant / Opposite Party No.2 does not want to proceed against the Petitioner in the criminal case. So no useful purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings pending. In various decisions of the Supreme Court, in matrimonial disputes where the offences are non-compoundable, proceedings have been quashed keeping the nature of dispute and future of the parties in mind. As the parties are leading their separate lives after the divorce and the informant / Opposite Party No.2 does not wish to proceed against the Petitioner in the GR Case, the order of cognizance and the proceedings may be quashed.

6. Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 submits that it is true that in matrimonial disputes where there has been a divorce between the parties, criminal proceedings have been quashed in many cases on the ground that the wife/ informant does not want to proceed in the case, but in the present case the offences under Sections 307 and 294 of the IPC are non-compoundable.

7. Mr. S.K. Jajodia, learned counsel for informant-Opposite Party No.2 submits that the latter is not interested to proceed with the case as the marriage between the Petitioner and her has been dissolved more than five years ago and they are leading their separate lives.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Navneesh Aggarwal and others v. State of Haryana and another , 2025 INSC 963 , has held as follows:

“14. Furthermore, this Court has consistently taken the view that where the matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of divorce, and the parties have since settled into their respective lives, criminal prosecution emanating from that past relationship ought not to be permitted to linger as a means of harassment. In the cases of Mala Kar vs. State Of Uttar