The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1621 of 2025 1) Guru Swain @ Guru Krushna Swain 2) Chakradhar Maharana ..... Petitioners 1) State of Odisha 2) Jayanti Moharana 3) Sudarshan Moharana -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. – Mr. Achyutananda Pattanaik Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC M/s Surendra Patra, A.K. Sahoo (For O.P. No.2) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 16.10.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party No.1. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, the Petitioners seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Air Field P.S. Case No.298 of 2024, which corresponding to C.T. Case No.920 of 2024, pending Page 1 of 5. in the court of learned J.M.F.C.-I, Bhubaneswar. 4. The above noted case was registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 126(2)/ 115(2)/ 296/ 351(2)/ 324(4)/ 76/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in Air Field P.S. Case No.298 of 2024 at the instance of the Informant. He further contended that due to a civil dispute between both the sides, the Informant has lodged the F.I.R. implicating the Petitioners as accused therein. He further contended that in the meantime the dispute has been amicably settled with the intervention of well- wishers and local gentries, as a result of which, a compromise has been arrived at, which has been filed, and the same has been reduced to writing. A copy of such compromise is filed along with a present application underAnnexure-2. He further contended that Informant does not want to proceed further in this case. Since the dispute has been amicably resolved, and the parties are residing peacefully in the locality. Therefore, further continuance of the present criminal proceeding would be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioners prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. 6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant, on the other hand, while supporting the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners, referred to the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2-Informant. The aforesaid affidavit was filed on 07.04.2025 after serving a copy thereof on the learned counsel Page 2 of 5. for the State. On perusal of such affidavit, it appears that same has been sworn by the Informant-Jayanti Moharana as well as on behalf of her husband-Opposite Party No.3. In the said affidavit, the Informant has categorically admitted that the matter has been amicably settled between both sides with the intervention of local gentries. It has also been stated that the FIR was initially lodged due to a misunderstanding between both sides. Since the dispute has been amicably resolved and the parties are living peacefully, the Informant does not want to proceed further in this case. Therefore, it has been stated that in the event this Court quashes the entire criminal proceeding, then the Informant will have no objection to the same. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, stated before this Court that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, he had taken instruction from the IIC of Air Field Police Station. The IIC, Air Filed Police Station has furnished instruction vide his letter dated 16.10.2025. The same is taken on record. 8. On perusal of the instruction vide letter dated 16.10.2025, it is observed that although copy of the compromise petition was not available on the case records of Air Field Police Station, however, on verification at Jamukoli Village and as per statement of the Complainant-Jayanti Moharana, the IIC has reported that the matter has been amicably settled between the Complainant and the accused persons, namely, Guru Krushna Swain and Chakradhara Moharana, and that the Informant does not want to proceed further in this case. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for Page 3 of 5. the State contended that he will have no objection in the event this Court passes any order in the larger interest of justice. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case as well as the subsequent development of compromise between the parties, further keeping in view the nature of the allegation and the fact that the Informant does not want to proceed further in the present case, this Court is of the view that permitting to continue the present criminal proceeding would cause wastage of valuable judicial time as the Informant does not support the case of the prosecution. Moreover, this Court found that except offences under Sections 296 and 76 of B.N.S., 2023, the other offences are compoundable in nature. Since the background of the present case is a civil dispute and that the same has been amicably resolved and that the parties are residing peacefully in the locality, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in the event the criminal proceeding is allowed to continue. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the present case comes within the exception of rarest of rare case where this Court can exercise its inherent power to bring to an end the criminal proceeding. 10. Accordingly, the present application is allowed to the extent that the offence under Sections 296 and 76 of the B.N.S., 2023 are hereby quashed. So far other offences are concerned, the parties are granted liberty to approach the trial court by filing an application under Section 359 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for Page 4 of 5. compounding of the offences within four weeks from today. In such eventuality, the trial court shall do well to dispose of such application within four weeks thereafter by taking into consideration the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC stands disposed of. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 21-Oct-2025 17:19:05 Page 5 of 5.