IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 1232 of 2022 (An application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)

Rishikesh Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus-

1. State of Odisha

2. Reshma Subudhi @ Sahoo …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner : Mr. Narayan Prasad Parija, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opposite Party No.1)

None (For Opposite Party No.2)

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

J U D G M E N T

Date of Hearing and Judgment : 09.04.2026 Savitri Ratho, J. The CRLMC has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the proceedings in G.R. Case No.1597 of 2017, arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.91 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar) Cuttack.

BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE

2. The brief fact of the case is that on 14.12.2015 Petitioner had married Opposite Party No.2 as per Hindu rites and customs.

After marriage, they resided in the paternal residence of the Petitioner, but due to differences between them, Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.91 of 2017 was registered under Sections 498- A/323/307/506/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the Petitioner, his parents and his two sisters on the complaint of Opposite Party No.2. The parties were living separately from each other since 01.01.2017.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Mr. N.P. Parija, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that due to intervention of the well-wishers of the parties, the parties agreed to part ways amicably for which a joint petition i.e. Civil Proceeding No.272 of 2021 had been filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, in which it has been stated at paragraph-8 that the litigations pending between the parties will not be proceeded and all the litigations will automatically come to an end by passing a decree of mutual divorce. Vide judgment dated 10.01.2022, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. As per their agreement Rs.25 lakhs has been paid by the Petitioner to the Opposite Party No.2 towards permanent alimony. After the decree of divorce was passed, the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 are leading their separate lives. As no steps have been taken by the Opposite Party No.2 for withdrawal or quashing the proceeding in G.R. Case No.1597 of 2017 pending in the Court of the learned SDJM (Sadar), Cuttack the Petitioner was constrained to file this CRLMC praying for quashing of the proceeding in G.R. Case No.1597 of 2017.

4. Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and 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 include a non-compoundable and serious offence like Section 307 of the IPC. He further submits that merely because the parties have entered into a settlement and obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the same does not automatically result in quashing of the criminal proceedings.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT

5. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and others : (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to its earlier decisions has laid down the principles governing the quashing of matrimonial disputes where there has been an amicable settlement, by holding as follows :

"12) The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

13) The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. : (2000) 3 SCC 693, are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in