Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

orderp.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.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

P.K. Patel, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Heard.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

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.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

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.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

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.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

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.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

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.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

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.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '537158',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Patel, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '537158',
		(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors Vs State of Orissa - Citation 537158 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '537158',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  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. 6. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State that the G. 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.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-12-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Patel, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.</p><p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.</p><p>2. Heard.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.</p><p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009(II)OLR779',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '537158',
	(int) 1 => 'gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/537158/gopal-chandra-pradhan-three-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>P.K. Patel, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State are present. Also, petitioners 1 and 4 are personally present.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>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.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Criminal
Court	Orissa High Court
Decided On	Dec-23-2008
Judge	P.K. Patel, J.
Reported in	2009(II)OLR779
Appellant	Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors.
Respondent	State of Orissa
Cases Referred	In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr.

Gopal Chandra Pradhan and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment