SARBESESWAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The CRLMC arises out of a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding in G.R. case No. 20 of 2003 arising out of Jankia P.S. case No. 6 of 2003 pending before the Court of S.D.J.M., Khurda.

(2.) THE petitioner No.1 married Opp. party No.2 on 9.7.1995 in accordance with Hindu rites and their caste custom and led a happy conjugal life for about two years. Out of the wed -lock, they were blessed with a male child. But, as ill luck would have it, the child joined the majority. Thereafter, in course of time, the happy conjugal life ran into rough whether as petitioner No.1 and other petitioners, who are his relatives, started ill -treating opp. party No.2 because of non -fulfilment of their demand of dowry. On 2.1.2003 she was assaulted and forcibly ousted from the matrimonial home. Finding no other way, Opp. party No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioners before the O.I.C. of Jankia P.S. which was registered as P.S. Case No. 6 of 2003 under Section 498 -A/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of D.P. Act. The case was investigated into and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offences under Section 498 -A/34 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioners. The S.D.J.M., Khurda before whom the case is pending took cognizance of the said offences.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the meantime, the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack decreed C.P. No. 284 of 2005 and dissolved the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and opp, party No. 2 by his order dated 5.5.2005. When the differences between the parties have already been settled there is no use in proceeding with the G.R. case. In case it is allowed to proceed, both the parties would suffer immense hardship for a prolonged period and public money and valuable time of the Court would be wasted unnecessarily. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where this Court should quash the G.R. Case by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction vested on it under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Per contra learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that the offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act are non -compoundable. If the offences are allowed to be compounded, then it would be inconsistent with the provision contained under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. So the CRLMC should be dismissed.