Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4480 of 2024 Puspalata Mishra & Ors. ..... Petitioner (s) Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. ….. Opposite Party (s) Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pradhan CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER Order No. 03.02.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. This matter was not in today’s list. On being mentioned, this matter is taken up through Special Notice. 3. The Petitioners have filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding and the order dated 17.06.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur in G.R Case No.1591 of 2018 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.63 of 2018. 4. The Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2 is present before this Court in person. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioner No.1 is died in the meantime. The matter has been amicably settled between the Opposite Party No.2 Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Feb-2026 10:52:19 Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 5. and other Petitioners. In the meantime, the Opposite Party No.2 has filed a case under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein she has sought for mutual divorce. A Joint Affidavit has been filed to that effect which shall form a part of the record. The contents of the Joint Affidavit is extracted hereinbelow: - “I, Smt. Lopamudra Kar, aged about 39 years, Wife of Sri Balabhadra Misra, D/o Sri Chittaranjan Kar, at present residing at Gandhi Nagar, 3rd Lane, P.O.-Berhampur, P.S. B-Town, District Ganjam, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 1. That I am the Opposite Party No.2/informant in the above noted CRLMC and am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the present CRLMC arises out of Mahila P.S. Case No.63 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1591 of 2018, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur wherein cognizance has been taken under Sections 498-A/294/323/406/506/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. That the present petitioners are my in- laws, and the criminal case arose out of matrimonial disputes between me and my husband. 4. That due to settlement of all disputes, I and my husband Sri Balabhadra Misra have amicably resolved our Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Feb-2026 10:52:19 Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 5. differences and mutually decided to dissolve our marriage. 5. That pursuant to such settlement, we have already filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent, which is pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur vide C.P No.12/2026, posted to 06.02.2026 for final adjudication. 6. That further, I along with my husband have already filed a joint affidavit before this Hon’ble Court in CRLMC No.361 of 2026, expressing my consent and no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. 7. That I categorially state that I have no objection if the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.63 of 2018 corresponding to G.R Case No.1591 of 2018 is quashed against the present petitioners. 8. That I am filing this affidavit voluntarily, out of my own will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence from any quarter. 9. That the statements made herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been suppressed.” 6. Having considered the contents of the joint affidavit filed by the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2/Complainant, it is evident that the dispute between the parties arose out of a matrimonial discord, which has since Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Feb-2026 10:52:19 Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 5. been amicably resolved and culminated in a mutual settlement. The parties have consciously decided to put an end to all pending litigations and to move forward in their respective lives. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would neither advance the cause of justice nor serve any fruitful purpose. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr1 has authoritatively held that criminal proceedings emanating from matrimonial and family disputes, which are essentially private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society at large, may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers when the parties have settled their differences. The said principle has been consistently followed by this Court in Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four others v. State of Orissa and four others 2and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and another v. State of Orissa & Anr3. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 7. In view of the joint affidavit filed by the parties and the undisputed fact that the matrimonial dispute has been conclusively resolved and the marriage dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, this Court is satisfied that the continuation of the criminal 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 2014 (II) OLR 29 3 2014 (II) OLR 452 Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Feb-2026 10:52:19 Page 5 of 5. proceedings would serve no purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Thus, guided by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh(supra) which have been consistently followed by this Court, this Court deems it a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the order dated order dated 17.06.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur in G.R Case No.1591 of 2018 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.63 of 2018, is hereby quashed. 8. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali