p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.330 of 2026 Santosh Kumar Sethy & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) Mr. U.K. Lenka, S. Lenka, S.K. Singh, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC (for O.P. No.1) Mr. M.K. Jena, Adv. (for O.P. No.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 02. ORDER 18.02.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Mr. M.K. Jena, learned counsel and his associates have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 in Court today, which is taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Opposite Party No.2 had instituted a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. During the pendency of the said proceeding, the Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 amicably resolved their matrimonial disputes and decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 jointly filed an application under Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 19-Feb-2026 16:56:51 Signature Not Verified p. 2 Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, which was registered as Civil Proceeding No.687 of 2022. The said petition was allowed by judgment and decree dated 06.10.2023, whereby the marriage solemnized between the parties on 29.11.2009 was dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that pursuant to the aforesaid decree of divorce, the parties are living separately as per their own volition. Opposite Party No.2 does not intend to pursue the criminal proceeding any further and has no subsisting grievance against the Petitioners. Accordingly, he prays for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioners. 7. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 supports the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners and confirms that the dispute has been amicably settled and that Opposite Party No.2 has no objection if the criminal proceeding is quashed. 8. 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. p. 3 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 9. 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. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions and considerations and taking into account the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioners vide Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.12 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.99 of 2013, pending before the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack, stands quashed. 11. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. 12. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 13. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. 14. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun 2 2014 (II) OLR 29 3 2014 (II) OLR 452