The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 630 of 2025 Jagan Biswal …. Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Baral, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Party(s)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.N. Biswal, ASC Mr. S.R. Acharya, Advocate (O.P.No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 01. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 17.02.2025 Heard. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in Krushna Prasad P.S. Case No. 81 of 2020 came to be registered against the petitioner corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1521 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned JMFC Cog-1, Puri for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 147/341/294/ 506/ 323/ 336/149 of IPC. 3. The allegation against the petitioners in nutshell is that on 31.05.2020 at 2.00 P.M. some antisocial of his locality came to his I.M.F.L on shop/Bar and demanded money. When the bar Page 1 of 7 employees protested, they assaulted them and started to abused the bar worker in obscene languages, assaulted and threatened to kill them. Hence the F.I.R. 4. The present matter is arising out of a matrimonial discord. Investigation in the present case is still going on. At this stage, petitioners have entered into a settlement with the opposite party no.2 and on the basis of the settlement terms, the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the entire prosecution. 5. After investigation, charge sheet in the case has already been filed and the learned SDJM, Puri vide order dated 28.06.2021 has taken cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 147/341/294/506/323/336/149 of IPC against the present petitioner and twenty one other accused persons. Before the trial is commenced, the informant has entered into a settlement with the present petitioner, who is arrayed as accused no.10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding initiated against the present petitioner be quashed on the ground of settlement, although the informant has settled with the present petitioner alone leaving the other twenty one accused to face the trial. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of B. Sathish Reddy v. State of Orissa and others reported in Page 2 of 7 2019 (III) ILR CUT 725 and submits that the informant can settled the dispute with any one of the accused leaving others. Paragraph-6 of the afore-referred judgment reads as under:- “6. During course of investigation, it was found out that the co-accused G. Srinibas Reddy and the victim Subash Agarwal (opposite party no.3) were known to each other since long and both were in the construction line and there was financial dispute between them for which case is subjudiced in the Court. It appears that all the three victims i.e. opposite parties nos.3, 4 and 5 were rescued on the very day of lodging of the first information report and their statements were also recorded and none of them has been assaulted or sustained any injury. The statement of the opposite party no.3 Subash Agarwal indicates that it is the co-accused Srinibas Reddy who put a revolver on his head and the petitioner asked him to remain silent. On going through the case records, I find no prima facie case against the petitioner relating to the commission of offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in respect of the other offences against the petitioner are omnibus in nature. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the informant and all the victims have settled their dispute with the petitioner and they have sworn affidavits before this Court that they are not interested to proceed against the petitioner and that they have no objection if the criminal proceeding against the petitioner stands quashed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana (supra) accepted the compromise between the informant and a particular accused and quashed the proceeding in respect of that accused, inter alia, holding that in view of the settlement arrived at between the informant and the accused, there is no chance of recording a conviction insofar as that accused is concerned and the entire exercise of trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. The ratio laid down in the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra) as was placed by the learned counsel for the State is distinguishable as in the present case the investigation has already been completed and the petitioner has not used any fire arm during course of occurrence. Page 3 of 7 in allowing On conspectus of the case records, it is apparent that there was business rivalry between the informant and one of the co-accused and that the occurrence arose out of such business rivalry. In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, I am of the humble opinion that no useful purpose would be served the proceeding to continue and there is no chance of recording a conviction against the petitioner in the case and entire exercise of the trial against the petitioner is destined to be an exercise of futility and it would just be an abuse of process of law. Therefore, it would be proper and justified to exercise the inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the ends of justice to quash the proceeding against the continuance of the criminal proceeding would be a sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court.” the petitioner otherwise Relying upon the aforementioned judgment, Mr. Baral, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the ground of compromise the Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C in quashing the criminal prosecution against the individual accused leaving other accused to face the trial. 6. The petitioner and opposite party no.2 the informant are present in Court and being represented and identified by their respective counsels. They have also filed self-attested copies of their Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. 7. The opposite party no.2, the informant has filed an affidavit before this Court dated 17.02.2025 stating inter alia as under:- Page 4 of 7 “2. That on the basis of the information lodged by me being the informant on 31.05.2020 before the Inspector- in-Charge, Krushnaprasad Police Station, Krushnaprasad P.S. Case No.81 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1521 of 2020 has been registered against the present petitioner for committing the offences punishable U/s 147/341/294/506/323/336/149 of IPC and now the case is pending before the learned JMFC, Cog-1, Puri. 3. That, even though I have lodged this FIR against the petitioner alleging against him and others, but in the meantime the matter has been settled among us out of court as it is arises out of a previous enmity and keeping in mind to our future relationship, I am not interested to further proceed with the present case against the present petitioner. 4. That I am the neighbor villager of the present petitioner, he was not present at the occurrence spot, but on the instigation of some local people, the present FIR was lodged by me out of anger and sudden provocation. It is pertinent to submit here that as the matter is now settled, I do not want to proceed in this case against the petitioner.” 8. On the query from the Court, the informant-opposite partyno.2 stated that he has entered into a settlement with the present petitioner. He has also submitted that the other accused persons have not come forward to settle the dispute with him. Therefore, he has chosen to settle the dispute vis-à-vis the present petitioner at this stage and joining with the petitioner praying for quashment of the criminal case he has initiated against the petitioner. 9. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the State submits that there are total twenty two accused persons and the informant has chosen Page 5 of 7 to settle the dispute with the present petitioner. But he does not have any contrary judgment to dispute the settle position of law. Hence, he submits that indulgence may begiven to the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of B. Sathish Reddy (supra). 10. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of B. Sathish Reddy (supra). Hence, the petition deserves merit. 11. Regard being had to the nature of allegations against the petitioner and the fact that they have settled the dispute and filed affidavit before this Court, I am inclined to allow the present petition. Further, continuation of the present proceeding will not endure to the benefit to either parties and, therefore, in these circumstances subjecting the petitioner to rigors of the trial is destined to be futile exercise. The case of the petitioner is directly covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi & others vs. State of Haryana & another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675. Page 6 of 7 12. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with Krushna Prasad P.S. Case No. 81 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1521 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned JMFC Cog-1, Puri is quashed qua on the petitioner. 13. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Feb-2025 10:18:39 Page 7 of 7