Page 1 of 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.810 of 2011

Shyam Sundar Satpathy &

another

….

Petitioners

-versus-

State of Orissa & another

….

Opposite Parties

CORAM: JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

Order

No.

ORDER

20.06.2022

19.

1. This matter is taken up by Hybrid mode.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by

the Petitioners for quashment of the FIR in connection with

Angul Town P.S. Case No.622 of 2010 corresponding to G.R.

Case No.1588 of 2010 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M.,

Angul.

3. It appears that the Petitioners are the parents-in-law of the

Opposite Party No.2. The husband of the complainant-Opposite

Party No.2 died. Thereafter, a complaint had been filed by the

Opposite Party No.2 alleging that suppressing the fact that the

son of the Petitioners was ailing person, marriage was

solemnized with her and also she was subjected to torture. The

court on receipt of the complaint sent the same under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C to the police station, which was registered as

Angul Town P.S. Case No.622 of 2010. It is not disputed that

during investigation of the case, Rs.8 lakhs had been paid to the

Opposite Party No.2 for compromise, which she has received.

// 2 //

Page 2 of 2

The Petitioners thereafter have sought for quashment of the

entire proceeding as well as the FIR.

4.During pendency of the proceeding, Opposite Party No.2-

wife appeared and submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.8

lakhs was for her maintenance. She having been cheated, the

same cannot be treated to be the consideration amount for

compromise of the matter. However, on the prayer of the

Opposite Party No.2-wife the matter was sent to the mediator

for mediation. The mediator reported that both the parties are

agreed to settle the dispute on payment of Rs.4 lakhs to the

Opposite Party No.2-wife in full and final settlement of her all

claims including the claim of her all future maintenance. Again

Opposite Party No.2-wife deviating from the same, has stated

that she is not agreeable for the same and demanded some

landed property.

5.However, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the

Petitioners are not agreeable for the demand of the landed

property made by Opposite Party No.2 as the property in

question is the self-acquired property of Petitioner No.1-father-

in-laws.

6.From the materials available on record, it would go to show

that the Opposite Party No.2-wife has already taken an amount

of Rs.8 lakhs and agreed to compromise the matter on receipt

of Rs.4 lakhs more but she now deviates from the aforesaid.

From this, it is clear that she is playing hide and seek with the

// 3 //

Page 3 of 2

court and has filed an affidavit resiling from the earlier

compromise, so also compromise arrived before the mediator.

7.Considering the facts and the submissions made, when after

death of her husband, she lodged the aforesaid criminal

prosecution against the Petitioners, this Court has every reason

to believe that the criminal prosecution was launched to harass

the parents-in-law, who have lost their son, who stated to have

died of cancer. Allowing the prosecution, as such after payment

of the money to the wife, when they have also agreed to pay

Rs.4 lakhs more in 2013 would be an abuse of the process of

Court.

8.Therefore, this Court allows this Criminal Misc. Case,

consequently quashes the prosecution subject to payment of

Rs.10 lakhs more to the wife-Opposite Party No.2 within six

weeks hence inasmuch as it was agreed that they would pay

Rs.4 lakhs more to the Opposite Party No.2-wife in the year

2013 and in the mean while nine years have elapsed. The

amount be remitted to the account of Opposite Party No.2-wife

through R.T.G.S. If the Opposite Party-2 wife refused to

receive the amount, the same shall be kept in fixed deposit

accoun