'Prolonged Litigation Aggravates Bitterness': Orissa High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against In-Laws After Settlement

The Orissa High Court has recently quashed a criminal proceeding, which was initiated in 2016 by a woman against her in-laws on the alleged ground of cruelty and matrimonial torture, after both the sides settled the dispute amicably amongst themselves.

Invoking the inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held–

“This Court is further of the view that efforts ought to be made to encourage reconciliation and amicable settlement between the parties, so as to enable them to reflect upon their respective shortcomings and resolve their disputes through mutual consent. Prolonged adversarial litigation in matrimonial matters not only aggravates bitterness between the parties but also results in unnecessary consumption of judicial time.”

On 12.03.2016, the private opposite party lodged an FIR against her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law on the allegation that they brutally assaulted her, as a result of which she sustained bleeding injuries on different parts of her body. Based on the said information, the IIC of Udit Nagar Police Station registered a case for offences punishable under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 354 (outraging modesty), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

While the case remained pending before the SDJM (P), Rourkela, the sister-in-law filed this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the FIR as well as the pending criminal proceedings on the ground that in the interregnum, the parties have settled their disputes through amicable means and they are no more eager to pursue the criminal litigation. In support of such contention, a joint affidavit was filed before the Court.

Against the above factual backdrop, the question which arose for consideration was whether the Court can quash a criminal prosecution involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of an amicable mutual settlement. To answer this question, the Court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) and B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2003), which basically held that when parties to a criminal proceeding amicably settle their disputes and if continuing such proceeding is not in the interest of justice, then the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) to quash the same, especially when the criminal case overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour.

Being guided by the aforesaid precedents and having regard to the factual position of the case in hand, Justice Panigrahi observed–

“In light of the aforesaid settled position of law, this Court is of the considered opinion 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. In disputes arising out of matrimonial relationships, a pragmatic and humane approach is required, keeping in view the delicate nature of such relationships and their impact on the social fabric.”

Resultantly, the pending criminal proceeding was set aside basing upon the compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties.

Case Title: Manjit @ Mandeep Kaur v. State of Odisha & Anr.

Case No: CRLMC No. 852 of 2026

Date of Order: April 09, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Prasad Mishra, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel for the State; Mr. Sarada Prasad Dash, Advocate for the private opposite party

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 41

Click Here To Read/Download Order