Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1610 of 2022
Kshyamashila Kaudi and others
&.
Petitioners
Mr. Kabiraj Pradhan, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and another
&.
Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA, OP No.1
Mr. S.P. Patra, Advocate for OP No.2
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Order No.
ORDER
20.09.2022
05.
1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
2.
Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the
petitioners praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding in G.R.
Case No.905 of 2014 arising out of Lephripara P.S. Case No.117 of
2014 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh on the
grounds stated therein.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner
no.1 received the entire amount of compensation from MCL but
then the opposite party No.2 who alleged to have misappropriated
the same whereupon an FIR was lodged consequent upon
Lephripara P.S. Case No.117 of 2014 was registered under Sections
465/467/468/476/506 of IPC. However, it is submitted that there
has been a compromise reached at between the parties and in fact,
opposite party No.2 received the amount of Rs.4 lac by a cheque
bearing No.21293 dated 12th September, 2022 which has been
credited in the account of the informant-opposite party No.2 on
16th September, 2022 and as per the understanding, an amount of
Page 2 of 3
Rs. 5 lac will be paid to the informant once the account is
defreezed. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners and
opposite party No.2 reached at a compromise.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner
No.2 is present in Court today and submits that the matter has been
settled between them. Informant-opposite party No.2 is also
present in Court today and files her affidavit regarding the
settlement arrived at between them by reiterating the above facts
that the amount received by her by way of a cheque from petitioner
No.2 from Punjab and National Bank account dated 16th September,
2022 and supports the settlement reached between them.
5 .
Learned counsel for the State submits that the offences are
not compoundable in nature therefore, the criminal proceeding
cannot be quashed, despite the parties have entered into settlement
between them.
6 .
Perused the affidavit filed by the informant. This Court is of
the view that since opposite party No.2 has already received the
amount of Rs.4 lac and there is an undertaking to pay the rest
amount only after the account of opposite party No.2 defreezed.
7.
Having regard to the above settlement of between the
petitioners and opposite party No.2 and in view of the aforesaid
development, the disciplinary proceeding should be quashed in the
ends of justice. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8.
The Court is aware of the settled position of law regarding
termination of proceedings vis-à-vis the parties with civil and
matrimonial disputes where the Supreme Court in the case of B.S.
Joshi and others Vrs. State of Haryana & Another reported in
(2003) 4 SCC 675 held that such jurisdiction may be exercised by
the High Court taking into account the facts and circumstances of
the case to meet the ends of justice. Having said so, the Court is of
Page 3 of 3
the view that it is a fit case where inherent jurisdiction should be
exercised in order to ensure peace in the marital life of the parties.
9.
In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed. Consequently, the
proceeding in G.R. Case No.905 of 2014 arising out of Lephripara
P.S. Case No.117 of 2014 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M.,
Sundargarh is hereby quashed.
10.
It is made clear that in the event the amount is not paid,
opposite party No.2 shall be at liberty to seek recall of the present
order and also to proceed f
