Justice Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi quashed criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute after recording an amicable settlement between the parties and relying on Supreme Court rulings permitting quashing of non-compoundable offences in appropriate cases.
Orissa High Court Quashes Matrimonial Criminal Case Against In-Law After Settlement Between Parties
Court quashes criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial dispute
The Orissa High Court has quashed criminal proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute after recording that the parties had amicably settled the matter and were no longer interested in supporting the prosecution. Justice Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi passed the order on 9 April 2026 in Manjit @ Mandeep Kaur v. State of Odisha & Anr., CRLMC No. 852 of 2026.
The petitioner moved the High Court seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated in connection with Udit Nagar P.S. Case No. 64 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 371 of 2016, pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.(P), Rourkela. The prosecution case, as noted in the order, was that on 12.03.2016, Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a written complaint before the I.I.C. of Udit Nagar Police Station alleging that she had earlier filed a written report on 11.03.2016 against her mother-in-law Kamaljit Kaur, sister-in-law Manjit Kaur, and brother-in-law Amanjit Singh. It was alleged that on the same night those persons assaulted her and that on the following day at about 9:00 a.m., they again brutally assaulted her, causing bleeding injuries on different parts of her body. Based on that information, the I.I.C. registered the case under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 506 and 34 of the IPC.
The Court recorded the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties that, in the meantime, the dispute had been amicably settled. A joint affidavit dated 07.04.2026 was filed in Court and taken on record. The extracted portion of the affidavit stated that during pendency of the CRLMC, both parties had settled their dispute amicably with the help of family members and village gentries. It further stated that Opposite Party No. 2 was staying separately with her husband from the in-laws, that she did not wish to proceed with the case any further, and that both parties had no objection if the criminal proceeding was quashed. The affidavit also stated that if the criminal proceeding were allowed to continue, both parties would suffer irreparable loss and injuries, and that the affidavit had been filed without fear, threat or coercion from any corner.
The Court also noted the submissions of learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 that, in view of the overall circumstances and the amicable settlement between the parties, and since they were no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.
The High Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, observing that the Supreme Court had referred to several authorities for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can be quashed on the basis of settlement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant. The order reproduces paragraph 58 of Gian Singh, where the Supreme Court held that offences overwhelmingly and predominantly bearing a civil flavour, including offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry or family disputes, may be quashed if, in view of the settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of conviction and continuation of criminal proceedings would result in justice being a casualty.
The Court further relied on Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2014 decided on 27.03.2014, where the Supreme Court set out principles governing exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code when parties have settled and seek quashing of criminal proceedings. The order reproduces the Supreme Court’s observation that the power under Section 482 is distinct from compounding under Section 320, and that such power may be exercised sparingly and with caution to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.The High Court also relied on B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2003) 25 OCR (SC) 99, where the Supreme Court held that if quashing of an FIR becomes necessary to secure the ends of justice, Section 320 would not bar the exercise of such power. The Orissa High Court order also refers within the extracted passage to State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors., (1977) 2 SCC 699, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., (1988) 1 SCC 692, and G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 693, while emphasising that in matrimonial matters courts ought to encourage genuine settlements and that where chances of ultimate conviction are bleak, continuation of criminal prosecution serves no useful purpose.
Justice Panigrahi observed that the aim and object of the legal system is not merely to punish the offender, but equally to preserve and promote peace, tranquillity and harmony in society. The Court held that in disputes arising out of matrimonial relationships, a pragmatic and humane approach is required, having regard to the delicate nature of such relationships and their impact on the social fabric. The Court further observed that efforts ought to be made to encourage reconciliation and amicable settlement between the parties so as to enable them to reflect on their respective shortcomings and resolve their disputes through mutual consent. It added that prolonged adversarial litigation in matrimonial matters not only aggravates bitterness between the parties but also results in unnecessary consumption of judicial time.
Relying on the settled legal position and the facts of the case, the Court exercised its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS and allowed the application. It quashed the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in connection with Udit Nagar P.S. Case No. 64 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 371 of 2016, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A/323/34 of IPC, pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.(P), Rourkela, on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The CRLMC was accordingly disposed of. The Court also directed that pending applications, if any, stand disposed of, that urgent certified copy be issued as per Rules, and that a copy of the order be communicated to the trial Court for information.
