IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1257 of 2025 Soumya Ranjan Bastia …. Petitioner Mr. J.S. Samal, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Parties Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, AGA Mr. Sabit Kumar Behera, Advocate for opposite party no.2 CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order ORDER No. 15.01.2026

02.

1. Heard.

2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with UPD, Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.173 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.1761 of 2023 came to be registered against the petitioner for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/323/307/294/34 of the IPC r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the informant on 26.11.2021. At the time of marriage, the father of the informant had given Rs.5 lakhs along with other household articles as per demand. But after few days of the marriage, her husband along with other in-laws started torturing the informant demanding more dowry, her father had given Rs.2 lakhs to her in-laws by succumb to such demand. After few days, the in-laws demand more dowry. But when she expressed her inability to fulfill their demand, they assaulted and tried to kill her. On 07.05.2023, the informant informed to her brother about all the incident. Her brother came to the house of her in-laws and tried to solve the matter. But all in vain. Hence, the F.I.R.

4. The petitioner has moved the present petition seeking quashing of the entire F.I.R. When the matter stood thus, the parties have entered into a settlement and they have settled the matter.

5. The opposite party no.2 has appeared before this Court on advance notice.

6. The opposite party no.2, who is the informant in the present case, is present in person before this Court today. The petitioner, who 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.

7. Both the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 conjointly submit that the petition may be allowed as they have settled their dispute and mutually separated. They have also filed the Joint Affidavit dated 15.01.2026 before this Court stating, inter alia, as under:

“ 2. That the First Information Report (FIR) in this matter was instituted, and the parties involved have now arrived at an amicable settlement. The dispute between the parties, which arose due to a monetary lapse in judgment, has been resolved. The misunderstanding that led to the litigation has been cleared, and both have instituted petition for Mutual Divorce U/s- 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack having Case No.CP-776/2024.

3. That pending the litigation will cause undue prejudice to both parties and unnecessarily consume the valuable time of the Court. With the lapse of time and resolution of misunderstandings, it is in the best interest of both parties to dismiss the proceedings to maintain their amicable settlement.”

8. On query from the Court, the opposite party No.2- wife submits that in terms of the settlement, she has already received a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- and the first motion under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been over. The petitioner has undertaken before this Court that at the time of the second motion of the petition U/s 13 B of HM Act, the remaining agreed amount of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be paid to the opposite party no.2. The oral undertaking is taken on record.

9. On the basis of the aforementioned settlement terms, the petitioner seeks quashing of the present F.I.R. The opposite party no.2 has no objection to the same.

10. Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1-State submits that the