Order No. 03

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing for entire criminal proceeding initiated against him in connection with Udit Nagar P.S. Case No.64 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No.371 of 2016 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M.(P), Rourkela.

3. Heard.

4. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 12.03.2016, Opposite Party No.2 filed a written complaint before the I.I.C. of Udit Nagar Police Station alleging that she had earlier filed a written report at the same police station on 11.03.2016 against her mother-in-law, Kamaljit Kaur, sister-in-law Manjit Kaur and brother-in-law Amanjit Singh. On the same night, the above-mentioned persons allegedly assaulted her. It was further alleged that on the next day at about 9:00 a.m., they again brutally assaulted her, as a result of which she sustained bleeding injuries on different parts of her body. Based on the said information, the I.I.C. of Udit Nagar Police Station registered the present case for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

Signature Not Verified Digitaly Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Apr-2026 15:37:02

5. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that, in the interregnum, the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. In support thereof, a joint affidavit dated 07.04.2026 is filed in Court today, which is taken on record.

6. The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by both the parties is extracted hereunder:

“xxx xxx xxx

3. That it is humbly submitted that during pendency of the above mentioned CRLMC application, both the party have settled their dispute amicably with the help of both their family members and village gentries. Pursuant to the settlement the Opp. Party No.2 staying with her husband separately from her in-laws member. In view of the development she do not want to proceed with the case further more. They have also no objection if the criminal proceeding will be quashed.

4. That in view of the settlement if the criminal proceeding will be allowed to continue we both parties will suffer irreparable loss and injuries.

5. That, we have filed this joint affidavit without any fear, threat coercion from any corner and being present at court.”

7. Learned counsel for the State so also learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submits that looking to the overall circumstances and since the parties have amicably settled the matter amongst themselves and are no longer interested in supporting the prosecution; no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.

8. Consequently and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab¹(2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

"58…....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends