Orissa High Court
CRLMC/2284/2026 of T. SUNITA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 25 August 2026
of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2284 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010527182026 T. Sunita ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sasmita Nanda -versus- 1) STATE OF ODISHA ..... Opposite Parties 2) T.RAM KUMAR Represented by Adv. - Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC DIPTI DHALL CORAM: MR. JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2284 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010527182026
T. Sunita
.....
Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Sasmita Nanda
-versus-
1) STATE OF ODISHA
.....
Opposite Parties
2) T.RAM KUMAR
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC
DIPTI DHALL
CORAM:
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
25.08.2026 Order No.
04.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant-wife and learned counsel for the State. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application, the Petitioner-husband who is an accused in Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No.135 of 2022 which corresponds to G.R. Case No.1322 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum- Women’s Court, Jeypore for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 498-A/294/323/506/406/34 of IPC
read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding pending against the Petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner married the Opposite Party No.2 on 15.02.2008. After the marriage they were living peacefully and were leading a happy conjugal life for two years. Thereafter, the dispute discord between the Petitioner-Husband and the Opposite Party No.2-wife. As a result of which, the Opposite Party No.2-wife filed the abovenoted P.S. Case entangled in the Petitioner and their entire family members.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, further contended that in the abovenoted criminal case, the matter was referred to the Jeypore District Mediation Centre. He further contended that at the mediation Centre the dispute has been amicably settled and such fact is evident from the report of the learned Mediator at Annexure-2 to the present application. She further contended that the learned women’s Court, Jeypore, vide order dated 25.03.2026, has taken note of the aforesaid amicable settlement of the dispute at the District Mediation Centre, Jeypore and has specifically observed that the dispute has been settled between the Parties and that they have agreed to the memorandum of agreement (joint compromise petition). Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that while taking note of such settlement of the dispute at the Mediation Centre, the learned trial Court has not passed any final order as some of the alleged offences are non-compoundable in nature. Such inaction on the part of the learned trial Court compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court with a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal case.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Informant-Opposite Party did not dispute the fact that the matter has been amicably settled. He further contended that in the event the entire criminal case is quashed with respect to the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 shall not have any objection to the same.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the fact of settlement of the dispute at the District Mediation Centre has already been taken note of by the learned trial Court, vide its order dated 25.03.2026. In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the State contended that in the event this Court passes any order to secure the ends of justice, he will have no objection to the same.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels of the respective Parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, further on a scrutiny of the mediation report at Annexure-2 as well as order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Women’s Court, Jeypore and taking into account the aforesaid settlement in terms of a joint compromise petition, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute has already been settled amicably in terms of the joint compromise petition. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is also of the view that the further continuance of the criminal proceeding would only be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding bearing G.R. Case No.1322 of 2022 arising out of Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No.135 of 2022 is hereby
quashed.
7. Accordingly, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Sisir
Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 28-Aug-2026 14:50:53 Signature Not Verified