The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.109 of 2025 Nandu @ Subhransu Debata …. Petitioner Mr.D.Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
Order No. 01. 1. Heard. ORDER 16.01.2025 2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Khallikote P.S. Case No.539 of 2020 corresponding to J.G.R. Case No.14 of 2020 came to be registered against the petitioner for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/294/323/506/34 of the IPC, pending in the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum- Page 1 of 6 Juvenile Justice Board, Chatrapur, District- Ganjam. 3. The prosecution alleged that, on 26.12.2020, the complainant lodged a written report at the Khallikote P.S. alleging that, on 25.12.2020, when his uncle Ulash Mahapatra was cooking at Narayani temple, at that time, the accused-Bibhuti Bhusan Debata abused him in filthy language. Then the nephew and his son came and assaulted his uncle by a stone, as a result of which he sustained injury on his head and on the other portions of his body and threatened till him. Hence, the F.I.R. 4. The petitioner is stated to be a juvenile in conflict with law. He has been arrayed as accused along with Kalia @ Hrushikesh Raiguru and Bibhuti Bhusan Debata. The co-accused Kalia @ Hrushikesh Raiguru and Bibhuti Bhusan Debata have filed CRLMC No.108 of 2025 seeking quashing of the criminal prosecution on the ground of settlement, which has been allowed by this Court vide separate order dated 16.01.2025. 5. After the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed in the present case on 20.02.2021 for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341/294/323/506/34 of the IPC. 6. Before commencement of the trial, the parties have settled their dispute and the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the criminal prosecution. 7. The petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 are present in the Court today. They are being Page 2 of 6 represented by their respective counsel and identified by them. They have also filed the photocopies of their self-attested Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. 8. The parties have filed the joint affidavit before this Court stating as under: “2. That, the Opp. Party No.2 in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Case, being the informant lodged a written complaint before the I.I.C., Khallikote Police Station against the present petitioner, which was registered as Khallikote P.S. Case No.539 of 2020 dtd. 26.12.2020, corresponding to J.G.R. Case No.14/2020 under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506, 34, 307 of IPC, which is pending in the court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Juvenile Justice Board, Chatrapur, Ganjam. 3. That, during the pendency of the above noted G.R. Case, the dispute between the Opp. Party No.2 (Informant) & Opp. Party No.3 (Injured) and the Petitioner/Accused person have been amicably settled out of Court, with the intervention of local gentries and well-wishers. Due to such settlement and in order to maintain the future peace among the parties, the Opp. Party No.2 (Informant) & Opp. Party No.3 (Injured) expresses their unwillingness to proceed further in the case. 4. That, in view of such amicable settlement, the Opp. Party No.2/Informant does not want to proceed the aforesaid criminal case further as against the present petitioner. It is relevant to submit herewith that the present case has been foisted by the Opp. Party No.2 due to political misunderstanding and village rivalry. 5. That, the Opp. Party No.2 (Informant) & Opp. Party No.3 (Injured) have no objection, if the criminal proceeding/F.I.R. made against the present petitioner may be quashed by this Hon’ble Court in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Application. 6. That it is also submitted here that, in event of continuance of the present proceeding there is every Page 3 of 6 chance/possibility of ill-feeling among the parties to which neither the Opp. Party No.2 (Informant) & the petitioners Opp. Party No.3 intending for. (Injured) nor 7. That, the petitioner and the Opp. Party No.2 jointly (Informant) & Opp. Party No.3 swears this Affidavit before this Hon’ble Court without any threat and coercion from any corner.” (Injured) 9. The injured is present in the Court today. On query from the Court, he submits that, although he was severely injured by the accused persons, but he has already entered into a settlement with them to maintain the peace and tranquility in the area. The settlement has been arrived on the intervention of the local gentries and the well-wishers. He does not want to prosecute the petitioner any more. He became the friend with the petitioner. 10. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1-State submits that, although the injuries sustained by the victim is grievous in nature and the charge sheet under Section 307 of the IPC has been filed against the petitioner who is a juvenile and the co-accused, however, the victim as well as the informant have filed a joint affidavit before this Court joining with the petitioner and pray for quashing of the F.I.R. No fruitful purpose would be served, if the parties shall be subjected to the rigors of the trial. Therefore, this Court may give indulgence in the present matter. 11. I have perused the charge sheet and the related Page 4 of 6 documents placed along with the charge sheet. The parties belong to the same locality and they have entered into a settlement. The parties are present in the Court today and conjointly pray for quashment of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner. 12. Regard being had to the terms of the settlement and the fact that the injured has not only filed the affidavit but also stated before this Court on the query of the Court that, he does not intend to prosecute the petitioner any more. Hence, I am inclined to allow the present petition. 13. In the fact scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of trial destined to be a futile exercise. The present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303; B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and MadhavraoJi Wajirao Scindia & another v. Sambhajirao ChandrojiraoAngre and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition deserves merit. 14. Taking into consideration the aforementioned judgments, the facts of the case and submissions made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Khallikote P.S. Case No.539 of 2020 corresponding to J.G.R. Case No.14 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Juvenile Page 5 of 6 Justice Board, Chatrapur, District- Ganjam and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed. 15. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Judge Subhasis (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 17-Jan-2025 14:46:00 Page 6 of 6