Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.2926 of 2014

Subodh Kumar Sahoo and others

&.

Petitioners

versus-

State of Orissa and another

&.

Opposite Parties

CORAM: JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI

Order

No.

ORDER

20.06.2022

04.

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

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

by the Petitioners to quash the order of charge dated 30^th March, 2010

framed against them in I.C.C. No.65 of 2009, pending in the Court of

S.D.J.M., Hindol.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned counsel

for the State-Opposite Party No.1.

4.

It appears that notice was issued to Opposite Party No.2-

Complainnt by registered post with A.D. but the A.D. having not been

returned, notice to Opposite Party No.2-Complainant be treated as

sufficient in view of the provisions contained in Section 27 of the

General Clauses Act.

5.

It also appears that the aforesaid case arises out of a marital

discord between the Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. The

other Petitioners are in-laws. The Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the

Opposite Party No.2-Complainant is the wife.

// 2 //

Page 2 of 3

6.

Petitioners have sought for quashment of the order of charge

on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the

parties in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., i.e., Crl. Misc.

No.20/2011-181 of 2013, which was subsequently transferred to the

court of Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal vide F.C. Case No.181 of

2013, where inter alia the term has been mentioned that the criminal

cases are filed by the Opposite Party No.2-wife against the Petitioners

shall also be withdrawn.

7.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that

since no one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2-wife in view

of the compromise in the aforesaid proceeding, so also Opposite Party

No.2-wife in the meanwhile has married elsewhere, this Court should

quash the aforesaid proceeding, as no useful purpose is going to be

served to continue with the same inasmuch as hereinafter there being

bleak chance of conviction, submits the learned counsel for the

Petitioner.

8.

Term of the compromise is there in the proceeding under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of criminal cases filed by the

Opposite Party No.2-wife. Some of the offences are non-compoundable

in nature. But non-compoundability of an offence does not stand on the

way of the Court for quashment of the proceeding in appropriate cases

in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C particularly in view

of the compromise as held by the apex Court in the case of Narinder

Singh and others vrs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014)

6 SCC 466, so also in the similar facts and circumstances when the

wife did not appear, the apex Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal vrs.

Amit Kumar Agrawal and others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 299 have

quashed the criminal proceeding.

// 3 //

Page 3 of 3

9.

In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the

apex Court, even if the wife had not appeared, this Court is of the view

that allowing the criminal prosecution hereinafter against the

Petitioners in the aforesaid factual backdrop would be an abuse of the

process of the Court. Accordingly, this Court, in exercise of the power

of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, quashes the criminal

prosecution initiated against the Petitioners at the instance of the

Opposite Party No.2-wife in I.C.C. No.65 of 2009 pending in the court

of S.D.J.M., Hindol. The court in seisin over the matter shall do well to

close the proceeding on production of the certified copy of this order.

10.

With the aforesaid order, this Criminal Misc. Case stands

disposed of being allowed.

11.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

application.