The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 813 of 2024 Ajay Kumar Ray and others …. Petitioner(s) Mr. R.K. Mallick, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Party(s)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC Mr. Basudev Mohapatra, Advocate (O.P.No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 03. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 04.04.2025 Heard. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, ICC Case No. 126 of 2021 has been registered against the petitioners, which is pending before the learned JMFC, Soro. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that he is a tenant at Soro college Chaka’s Bijay Ku. Das’s house. In one portion of that house, he reside with my family and the owner resides at another portion. On 4/5.7.2021 at about 3 am (Sunday) while he was sleeping, he heard someone calling “Nilu”. He saw through the window and saw two ladies and five male persons are saying “Sala , Page 1 of 6 gate khole”. He replied them that I am a tenant. I do not know “Nilu” and I have no keys to that gate. He also told them that he is an advocate. Thereafter, they abused him in obscene language. Then those persons cut the gate and entered inside. At that time, the house owner opened the main gate and when the gate opened accused Binod Kishore Bala (ASI, Nayapalli, PS) rushed towards him and assaulted him with an iron rod on his left chest and he fell down. When his son interrupted, at that time, it is alleged that Petitioner no.l gave him slap and snatched his mobile. Then one SI Barla again slapped him and his son and dragged them to the vehicle. The petitioner no.3 took cash of 5,400/- from his table. Thereafter, at about 4.30am they took them to Soro Police Station and put them inside hazat. At that time, again SI Barla assaulted on his left cheek and ear, by which he became senseless. At about 6.00am, Ashok Ku.Mohanty (SI, Soro police)/ petitioner no.6 threatened him to book in false case. At about 8.00am, petitioner no.5 Madhumita Mohanty (IIC, Soro PS) came and also threatened him book him in a false and forward. At about 9.00am, some of his advocate friends reached at police station and the police personnel also misbehaved them. On that day, also he lodged FIR at the police station against all the accused. At about 3.00pm, when his advocate Page 2 of 6 friends again reached at police station, the IIC, Soro PS petitioner no.5 told that she did not take any action in this case. From the CCTV footage also the SDPO Srivatsa Mishra confirmed the incident. The mobile voice recording is also available in the phone of his son regarding the entire incident. Hence the complaint. 4. The matter was referred to the High Court Mediation Centre vide order dated 29.04.2024 and the mediation became successful. The High Court Mediation Centre has placed a report dated 29.06.2024, inter alia stating as under:- “Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court dtd.29.04.2024 passed in CRLMC Case No. 811 of 2024 the mediation was held on 20.05.2024, and today i.e on 29.06.2024 in different single and joint sittings. Both the parties are present along with their respective counsels at High Court of Orissa Mediation Centre, Cuttack. The mediation was held in both single and joint sittings. I persuaded and generated various options to settle the dispute between the parties amicably. The Opp. parties have no objection if the matter is settled amicable through this foroum and also Hon'ble Court. Hence the mediation became successful. Office of the mediation centre is requested to submit this report before the Hon’ble High Court for kind perusal.” 5. On the basis of the settlement terms, the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the entire criminal prosecution. Page 3 of 6 6. The petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 are present in Court. Petitioners no.4, 5 and 6 are appearing through virtual mode and opposite party no.2 the informant is 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. They have also filed joint affidavit dated 04.04.2025 inter alia stating as under:- “1. Name:Ajay Kumar Ray, Address:of Kathagada Saho, PO-GPO,PS- Purighat, Dist-Cuttack, Occupation-Retired person, aged about 63 years. 2. Father’s name- Late Madhabananda Ray 3. Number of proceeding (s) pending in the High Court or would be instituted (Caveat) – No. 4. Statement of facts: As per averments in the CRLMC Petition. 5. That I am the petitioner no.1 in this case and case relating to ICC No. 126/2021 pending before the learned JMFC, Soro. The allegation arising out of matrimonial dispute and the police went to apprehend one of the accused and informant intervened in the official duty for which there is dispute arise out of mis-understanding between lawyers and police personnel. 6. That, the matter has been amicable settle between us and fellow feeling between us has been restored due to intervention of the gengries.” Page 4 of 6 7. Pursuance to the mediation report and the affidavits filed before this Court, the parties are conjointly praying for quashing of ICC No. 126 of 2021. 8. Opposite party no.2, who is present in Court, on query from the Court submits that he does not want to prosecute the petitioners, as he has settled the matter and joins with the petitioners making prayer for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution. 9. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State submits that since the parties have settled the dispute and file affidavit before this Court, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceeding. 10. Regard being had to the nature of the allegation made by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioners and the fact that they have settled the dispute by mediation conducted by the High Court mediation centre and filed affidavits before this Court regarding the same, I am inclined to allow the present petition. Further, continuation of the present proceeding will not enure to the benefit to either parties and, therefore, in these circumstances subjecting the petitioners 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 Page 5 of 6 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. 11. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with ICC Case No. 126 of 2021, pending in the court of the learned JMFC, Soro is quashed qua the petitioners. 12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Apr-2025 15:03:08 Page 6 of 6