SANJAY KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the order dated 8.12.2003 taking cognizance passed by the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 92 of 2003.

(2.) IT appears that on the basis of the complaint petition filed by one Sarawasti Sahoo (Opp.Party No. 2) in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack, I.C.C. No. 13 of 2003 was registered and the same was sent to the police for investigation which was registered as Cuttack Sadar Police Station Case No. 18 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 494/506/294/342/498(A)/307/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There are co -accused as shown in the F.I.R. besides petitioner No. 1, who are family members of petitioner No. 1. It appears that a petition for mutual divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack by petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2, who are husband and wife respectively. In that petition it has been mentioned in paragraph -5 thereof that the local gentlemen and well -wishers of both the parties have settled their dispute that the Ist party and 2nd party (O.P. No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 respectively) will live separately and the marriage which has been solemnized between the parties be dissolved with conditions that the petitioner No. 1 will pay a sum of Rs. 34,000/ - (thirty four thousand) only to the opposite party No. 2 for her life maintenance. The learned Judge, Family Court passed a decree for divorce of the parties by dissolving the marriage solemnized on 1.1.3.1999 vide judgment and decree dated 11.3.2005. Now both petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2, i.e. the husband and wife respectively are living separately and happily and there is no dispute remained between them. It may be indicated that opposite party No. 2 who has filed a petition Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance, has already been dropped, Before this Court petitioner No. 1 - husband and other petitioners who are his relatives have come for quashing of the impugned order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in 2003 (II) OLR (SC) 101 in Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2003 decided by the apex Court wherein it was held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the power under Section 482 of the Code.