Orissa High Court
CRLMC/173/2025 of PRABINA@LAXMIDHAR MUDULI@ PRABINA KUMAR MUDULI Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 1 September 2026
of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.173 of 2025 CNR No. ODHC010908852024 Prabina @ Laxmidhar Muduli @ Prabina Kumar Muduli & Ors. ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. – Mr. A . Mishra -versus- State Of Orissa & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv.- Smt.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.173 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010908852024
Prabina @ Laxmidhar Muduli
@ Prabina Kumar Muduli &
Ors.
.....
Petitioners
Represented By Adv. –
Mr. A. Mishra
-versus-
State Of Orissa & Anr.
.....
Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv.-
Smt. Sasmita Nayak, ASC
Mr. P. K. Mohanty
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
01.09.2026 Order No.
02.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 and learned counsel for the State. Perused the CRLMC application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as well as the grounds taken therein.
3. By filing the present application, the Petitioner No.1-husband, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3-in-laws of the Opposite Party No.2 have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order of cognizance in C.T. Case No.137 of 2019 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C.,
Narsinghpur. The above noted C.T. Case arises out of Narsinghpur P.S. Case No.85 of 2019, which was registered at the instance of Opposite Party No.2 as an informant alleging commission of an offence punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 294, 506, 307 of IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the Opposite Party No.2 and Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws of the Opposite Party No.2. He further contended that the Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2, who were married earlier, during their marital life a matrimonial dispute occurred. As a result of which, the Opposite Party No.2 has lodged the present FIR making allegation against the husband as well as the in-laws. He further contended that in the meantime, the dispute has been resolved and that the parties have decided to part ways gracefully by obtaining a decree of divorce with mutual consent. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioners referred to the mutual divorce decree and judgment dated 17.05.2024 in C.P. No.348 of 2024 of the court of learned Family Court, Cuttack. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that such application filed before the learned Family Court, Cuttack under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has already been allowed and the marriage solemnized between the Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 has been dissolved with effect from 04.03.2018 by grant of decree of divorce on mutual consent.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2, on the other hand submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 is no more interested in proceeding further in the present criminal case. It is also submitted before this Court that the Opposite Party No.2 has already remarried in the meantime and she has been leading a happy conjugal life. On behalf of the Opposite Party No.2-Informant, the submission was made that she does not want to proceed further in this case and that in the event, the FIR is quashed, still have no objection to the same.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand submitted that the dispute has been settled amicably between the parties and still have no objection in the event, this Court passes an order to secure the ends of justice.
7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, further taking note of the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled and that the parties do not want to proceed further in the pending criminal case and further taking note of the fact that they have been judicially separated and the Opposite Party No.2 has remarried in the meantime, this Court is of the considered view that further continuance of the present criminal proceeding would amount to abuse a process of law. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is fit case where this Court deems it proper to intervene in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding bearing C.T. Case No.137 of 2019 is hereby quashed and the CRLMC application stands allowed.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge Sumitra
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Sep-2026 16:18:25 Signature Not Verified