ORDER
P.K. Patel, J.
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.
2. Heard.
3. The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.9.2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 1144 of 2006 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 498-A/377/294/323/114/406/506/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. It appears that G.R. Case No. 1144 of 2006 was registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner No. 4 against petitioners 1, 2 and 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the brother of petitioner No. 2 Petitioner No. 3 is petitioner No. 2's wife. It is not disputed that the petitioner No. 4 was legally married wife of petitioner No. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as petitioners 1 and 4, who are present in Court, upon reference to documents annexed to this application submit that in Civil Proceeding No. 134 of 2008 of the Court of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack a decree of divorce on the basis of joint application filed by the petitioners 1 and 4 has been passed. Petitioner No. 4 further also submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties she does not want to further proceed with the criminal proceeding against the petitioners in G.R. Case No. 1144 of 2006.
5. Learned Counsel for the State in resisting the prayer for quashing the proceeding contends that criminal proceeding, once instituted, has to be allowed to continue till disposal of the case in accordance with law and should not be brought to an end at the whim and fancy of the parties unless the offences alleged are compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G.R. Case No. 1144 of 2006 arises out of matrimonial dispute between the petitioners 1 and 4. Due to irreconcilable differences, finding no chances of reunion, both of them mutually agreed to obtain a decree of divorce. In the application for divorce jointly filed by the petitioners 1 and 4 it has been averred that both of them agree to take steps for quashing of the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1144 of 2006 after obtaining decree of divorce. Therefore, it is obvious that the petitioners do not seek termination of the criminal proceeding by invoking provisions under Section 320 Cr.P.C. for compounding of the offences. Rather, under the facts and circumstances of the case, / jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being invoked for quashing the proceeding in order to prevent abuse of process of Court with a view to secure ends of justice.
7. Under similar consideration, when the continuance of the priminal proceeding was found to be a futile exercise, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court that proceeding further with the case will be an abuse of process of Court and, accordingly, proceedings have been quashed by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In this connection, decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fazle Gaffar Khan and Ors. v. State of W.B. and Anr. (2000) 10 S.C.C. 70 and decisions of this Court in Betu @ Bijan Kumar Nayak v. State of Orissa and Anr. : 2001 (II) OLR 433, Liaquat Hussen Khan and Anr. v. State of Orissa (2001) 21 OCR 437, Tasoraj Mahamad and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Anr. 2004 (II) OLR 642, Ajaya Kumar Das v. State of Orissa and two Ors. (2005) 31 OCR 339, Hemanta Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa (2007) 37 OCR 698 & Balabhadra Rout and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. (2008) 40 OCR 363 may be referred to. In B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (2003) 25 OCR 99 it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when quashing of proceeding is found to be necessary for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. cannot stand as a bar* When chance of conviction is bleak, the Court can proceed to quash the proceeding taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr. 1996 (3) Crimes 85 (SC) it has been observed that when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. Even when the trial Court is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceeding.
8. In view of the above discussion, there appears no justification to allow continuance of the criminal proceeding when the informant herself does not want to proceed with the case. Therefore, in order to prevent abuse of process of Court with a view to secure the ends of justice the criminal proceeding is quashed.
9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.