The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 10:15:40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1643 of 2024 Sankar Prusty …. Petitioner Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
Order No. 03. 1. 2. ORDER 16.12.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the instance of the opposite party no.2, the F.I.R., i.e., Paralkhemundi P.S. Case No.138 (2) of 2013 came to be registered against the petitioner under Sections 419/420/387/384/506/34 of the IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No.398 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Paralkhemundi. 3. The prosecution case is that One Sri Pinash Sahara (Opp. Party No.2) lodged a written report on 8.9.2013 before the IIC, Paralakhemundi Police Station inter alia alleging that he has appeared for an interview for the post of Sepoy scheduled to be held between 25.07.2013 to 2.8.2013. He appeared and was successfully qualified in the Physical Test as well as Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 10:15:40 Written Test. Two days prior to the declaration of result, he met with one Linga Gamango, who persuaded him to hand over the original certificate to one Asit Samal of Paralakhemundi, who can help him for selection. Asit Samal told him that, two other persons, namely, Sankara Prusty (petitioner) and Kora Nath @ Koresh Nath, who are serving in police department are having good nexus with selection Board and can manage the selection in his favour and in lieu of this, he has to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- and the said amount is to be paid after he selected. The informant got persuaded with such promise and agreed with the proposal. Only two persons out of 17 candidates were selected . The informant (Opp. Party No.2) was one of them. Accordingly, all the above accused persons demanded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- and all of them further said that the original certificates shall be returned, after the demanded amount was paid. As the informant had to join in his new job on 11.09.2013, he went to Sri Asit Samal to collect his original certificate, the said accused demanded the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and said that he can procure his original certificate from Shankar Prusty and Kora Nath by paying the demanded amount. Hence, the F.I.R. 4. After investigation, Charge Sheet has been submitted on 30.06.2014 against four accused persons including the present petitioner for alleged Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 10:15:40 commission of aforementioned offences. Three accused persons including the present petitioner have been absconding where as accused Linga @ Lingaraj Gamango had faced the trial. The learned S.D.J.M., Paralkhemundi in Trial No.291 of 2023 vide judgment dated 11.07.2023 recorded acquittal in his favour. The leaned S.D.J.M., Parakhemundi in the said judgment, has returned the following finding: “6. 0. During course of trial, the Informant (P.W.5) has stated that he does not remember anything regarding this case as it has occurred so many years back. He proved the FIR marked as Ext.P-4 and his signature thereon marked as Ext.P-4/1. cross examination he stated that he does not want to proceed further in this case. P.W.I, PW.2 and PW.3 deposed their ignorance about the case. P.W.4 stated that his brother had come for an interview in the department and somebody kept his certificate and demanded bribe. In his cross examination he admitted that he has no direct or indirect knowledge regarding this case. He cannot say the exact date when he was examined by police.” In his 5. Relying upon the aforementioned judgment of the learned trial Court below and the fact that the parties have already settled their dispute, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court for quashing the entire criminal prosecution. 6. The petitioner and opposite party no.2 appear before this Court in person being identified by their respective counsel and have filed their self-attested xerox copies of Aadhar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 10:15:40 7. The opposite party no.2 has filed an affidavit dated 25.11.2024, inter alia, stating as under: in for the the petitioner the court of “2. That, the opposite party no.2 had lodged an FIR on 8.9.2013 before the Paralkhemundi Police Station against offences U/s.419/420/387/384/506/34 of IPC which was registered as Paralkhemundi P.S. Case No.138 /2013, which correspond to G.R. Case No.398 of learned SDJM, 2013 pending Paralkhemundi. 3. That, subsequently, charge sheet was filed on dtd. offences U/s.419/420/387/384/506/34 of IPC against the petitioner. 4. That, now the petitioner is maintaining good and happy relationship with the opposite party no.2. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with litigation against the petitioner any further. 30.06.2014 the for 5. That, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, without any force, coercion or for any wrongful gain. Both the parties want to keep good relationship with each other ignoring the past acrimony between them. 6. That, the FIR which has been lodged before the Paralkhemundi Police Station vide Paralkhemundi P.S. Case No.138 dtd. 8.9.2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.398 of 2013 pending in the court of learned SDJM, Paralkhemundi by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner will not proceed further.” 8. On the query from this Court, the opposite party no.2 stated that he has already settled the dispute with the petitioner. Therefore, he does not want to proceed further against the petitioner so also against the other accused persons. 9. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the State submits that the dispute is inter se parties and the parties have already settled their dispute. Therefore, this Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 10:15:40 Court may give indulgence, as there is no legal impediment.Moreover, subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of trial is destine to be futile exercise as the opposite party no.2 has already settled the dispute with the petitioner. Therefore, the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, B.S. Joshi & others vs. State of Haryana & another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madhavraoji Wajirao Scindia and another Vrs. Sambajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC. 11. Regarding being had to the aforementioned submissions made at bar, Paralkhemund P.S. Case No.138 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.398 of 201 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Paralkhemundi and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed. The petitioner is directed to pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to the opposite party no.2. 12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge amit