IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.5552 of 2025 Praveen Kumar Sharma & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) Mrs. Babita Pattnaik, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC (for O.P. No.1) Mr. Ramashish Acharya, Adv. (for O.P. No.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 03. ORDER 16.03.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them vide Purighat P.S. Case No.13 of 2025 in connection with G.R. Case No.30 of 2025, pending before the Court in seisin over the mater. 4. Pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2026, Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 are present before this Court and filed a joint affidavit dated 16.03.2026, which is taken on record. The relevant paragraphs read as under: “1. That the Deponent No.1 is the Petitioner No.1 and the Deponent No.2 is the Opposite Party No.2 in the Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Mar-2026 18:28:37 Signature Not Verified present CRLMC application, and both of us are well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the Deponent No.1 and Deponent No.2 were previously husband and wife. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the Deponent No.2 had lodged an F.I.R. dated 10.01.2025 before Purighat P.S., which was registered as Purighat P.S. Case No.13 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.30 of 2025, under Sections 85, 126(2)/115(2)/88/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act. 3. That During the pendency of the matrimonial disputes, with the intervention of well-wishers, relatives, and family members, both the deponents amicably resolved all their disputes. 4. That pursuant to such settlement, the Deponents filed a joint petition for mutual divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was registered as C.P. No.163 of 2025 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. 5. That the said marriage between the Deponents was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. 6. That, as per the terms and conditions of the settlement and the evidence affidavit filed in the divorce proceedings, the Deponent No.2 agreed not to purse the criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the Petitioners, including the present Purighat P.S. Case No.13 of 2025/G.R. Case No.30 of 2025. 7. That both the Deponents hereby state that all disputes between them have been settled amicably and they have no further claims or grievances against each other. Page 3 of 4 8. That the Deponent No.2 has no objection if the F.I.R. in Purighat P.S. Case No.13 of 2025 and the consequential criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No.30 of 2025 pending before the learned trial Court are quashed by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice. 9. That this Joint Affidavit is being filed voluntarily by both the Deponents without any fear, force, coercion, or undue influence.” 5. The joint affidavit filed by the Petitioners and Opposite Party No.2, which is accepted and shall form a part of this order. 6. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another1, has held that in appropriate cases involving matrimonial disputes or private disputes of personal nature, where the parties have amicably settled their differences, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of Court. 7. This Court has also followed the said principle in Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four others v. State of Orissa and four others2, and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and another v. State of Orissa and Another3, and has held that where the dispute has been settled and the parties, continuation of the criminal proceeding would serve no fruitful purpose. 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 2014 (II) OLR 29 3 2014 (II) OLR 452 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the contents of the joint affidavit filed by the Petitioners and Opposite Party No.2 and taking into account the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in permitting the criminal proceeding to continue, as the same would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the prayer made in the CRLMC is allowed. 9. Consequently, the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioners in connection with Purighat P.S. Case No.13 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.30 of 2025, pending before the Court in seisin over the matter stands quashed. 10. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. 11. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 12. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. 13. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun