CRLMC/2744/2026 of DHANAMATI SAHU Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 8 September 2026

ORDER

08.09.2026 Order No.

01.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2, who is appearing on her own motion without notice being issued to such Opposite Party. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the informant-victim in Boudh PS Case No.221 dated 28.09.2015 which was registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 341, 323, 506 of IPC which corresponds to C.T Case No.468 of 2015 pending before the learned SDJM, Boudh have approached this Court by filing the present application with a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding on the ground that the same has been amicably resolved through the mechanism of mediation.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner No.2, is the wife of the Opposite Party No.2. He further contended that due to a matrimonial discord between the husband and wife, the Petitioner No.2-wife lodged an FIR before the Boudh Police Station making allegations against the Opposite Party No.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation started, and upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet has also been filed on 09.02.2016, at Annexure-2. He further contended that the matter was referred to the District Mediation Centre, Boudh. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that at the District Mediation Centre, Boudh, both parties appeared before the Mediator and the matter has been amicably settled before the learned Mediator. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioners referred to the report of the learned Mediator dated 18.05.2026, at Annexure-3, and pointed out to this Court that the learned Mediator has informed that the mediation has become successful. He further contended that since the dispute has been amicably settled and both the Petitioners as well as Opposite Party No.2 do not want to proceed further in this criminal case, the interest of justice can be very well be secured by quashing the entire criminal proceeding.

5. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2, on the other hand, supported the stand taken by the counsel for the Petitioners, is the wife and mother. She further contended that pursuant to the notice by the learned Mediator, the Petitioners appeared before the learned Mediator at the District Mediation

Centre, Boudh where the matter was amicably resolved and that such settlement of the dispute through mediation has been recorded in the mediation report. In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 contended before this Court that the further continuance of the present proceeding would be an abuse of process of law.

6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted on the basis of the documents annexed to the present application that the dispute between the Petitioner No.2 and the Opposite Party No.2 has already been settled through mediation. Such fact is evident from the mediation report at Annexure-3 as well as the order of the learned trial court dated 19.05.2026 at Annexure-4. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that she will have no objection in the event this Court passes any order to secure the ends of justice.

7. Having regard to the contentions made by counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to the CRLMC application, further on a careful examination of the mediation report at Annexure-3 and on a close scrutiny of the order dated 19.05.2026, this Court observes that when the matter was pending before the learned trial court in C.T No.468 of 2015, the same was referred to the District Mediation Centre by the learned trial court in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226. The learned Trial Court in its order has also taken note of the fact that the mediation has become successful and that the parties have settled the matter at the Mediation Centre. The order dated

19.05.2026 further reveals that since the offence under Section 498- A of the IPC is a non-compoundable offence, the learned trial court could not have compounded such offence on the basis of the mediation report. Accordingly, the parties were granted liberty to approach this Court by filing the present application for quashing of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.

8. Considering the submissions made by counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination and analysis of the factual background as well as the fact the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is not compoundable and keeping in view the fact that the matter has been settled at the Mediation Centre and that the Petitioner No.2-wife has no objection in the event the entire criminal proceeding is quashed, this Court is of the view that the present matter is a fit case where this Court should exercise its inherent power to bring an end to the dispute between the husband and wife. Accordingly, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the entire criminal proceeding in Boudh PS Case No.221, dated 28.09.2015, which corresponds to C.T Case No.468 of 2015 pending before the learned SDJM, Boudh, is hereby quashed. On production of a copy of today’s order, the learned trial court shall close the proceeding pending between the parties.

9. Accordingly, the CRLMC application stands disposed of. .

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

Anil

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Sep-2026 11:27:51 Signature Not Verified