KHATU SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the proceeding initiated by opposite party No. 2 informant in Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No. 125 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 351 of 2002 pending before the Learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A/419/34, IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2, Sanghamitra Swain, a resident of village Bartira of Dist.: Jagatsinghpur had been married to petitioner No. 5 on 13.5.1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. The said petitioner No. 5 is presently living at New Delhi. The further allegation is that the parents of the informant were given wrong information that petitioner No. 5 is working as Asst. Director, Finance Commission, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Further it is alleged that as per the demand of the petitioner No. 5, besides other articles and ornaments a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - in cash was given by her father at the time of her marriage. After the marriage, petitioner No. 5 took the informant -opposite party No. 2 to his resident at Delhi. During their stay at Delhi, petitioner No. 5 along with the parents compelled the opposite party No. 2 to ask her father to present a car in shape of dowry. When the opposite party No. 2 refused the same, it is alleged that petitioner No. 5 took a written statement from opposite party No. 2 that she had illicit relationship with one of her class -mates. It is also alleged that taking advantage of the written statement, petitioner No. 5 filed a divorce petition in the District Judge Court at Delhi for annulling the marriage. Opposite party No. 2 came from Delhi on 6.9.1999 to her village Redhua and thereafter she lodged an FIR in Kishornagar P.S. vide P.S. Case No. 77/1999 under Sections 498 -A/209/506/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On the basis of the said FIR, G.R. Case No. 986 of 1999 was initiated and all the petitioners except petitioner No. 5 were apprehended and remanded to jail custody. Of Course, after remaining for about 15 days in jail custody they were released on bail. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 5 in order to avoid arrest approached the father of the opp. party No. 2 and compromised the matter. Consequentially, all the Criminal Cases were withdrawn. Again opposite party No. 2 went to her in -laws house at Delhi. On reaching there, petitioner No. 5 refused to sleep with her and with compulsion a decree of divorce was passed in the month of March, 2003. Thereafter, in the month of April 2003 the in -laws terminated her pregnancy after decree of divorce was passed. Thereafter, the present FIR. was lodged against the petitioners.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 2 Sanghamitra Swain filed an affidavit before this Court through her counsel, to the effect that she and her husband have amicably settled their dispute and mentioned about the finalisation of the compromise petition in the review petition by which the review petition was withdrawn.