The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2003 of 2024 1) Debasis Paikaray 2) Mandip Kumar Paikray 3) Sk.adip @shitab Alam Saikh 4) Debasish Sahoo 5) Sumanta Barik 6) Bidyadhar Barik @ Nidhia 7) Naresh Chandra Pradhan 8) Subash Chandra Sahoo 9) Hrusikesh Senapati @ Milu 1) State Of Odisha 2) Santosh Kumar Samantaray 3) Jitendra Behera 4) Chhabindra Nayak 5) Siba Prasad Swain ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Bipin Kumar Nayak -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Ms. S.Nayak, A.S.C. M/s. Priya Ranjan Mishra K.c.tripathy P.behera CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 10.09.2025 Order No. 07. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the informant-Opposite Party No.2 as well as the injured-Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the accused-petitioners seek to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Gop P.S. Case No.75 of 2024 which corresponds to G.R. Case No.132 of Page 1 of 5. 2024 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Konark. 4. The abovenoted PS case was registered at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2-informant for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 114/ 307/ 294/ 323/ 325/ 379/ 506/ 34 of I.P.C. read with Section 25/27 of Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/ 3(2) (va) of the S.C & S.T. (P.A.) Act. 5. On perusal of the allegation made in the F.I.R., it is observed that there was a scruple between two groups of political people belonging to different political parties during the last general election. As a result of which supporters of both groups sustained minor injuries. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that due to the political rivalry between the two groups the present F.I.R. has been registered at the instance of the informant group. He further submitted that in the meantime both sides have amicably resolved in the dispute on compromise. He further submitted that both the Petitioners as well as informant group are residing in the same locality at the moment and they are living peacefully and have a cordial relationship. He further contended that on the basis of the aforesaid compromise, the informant does not want to proceed further in the present criminal case. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that further continuance of the present proceeding would be an abuse of process of law and that the same is not in the larger interest of justice. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Informant on the other hand contended that although the F.I.R. was lodged making allegation against the present Petitioners, however the same was due to a Page 2 of 5. misunderstanding between two groups due to their political standing. He further contended that in the meantime, with the intervention of the well-wishers and local gentries both the groups have resolved their dispute amicably and that they are living peacefully in the locality. He also admitted that there exists a cordial relationship between two groups after the last stage of election. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further referred to the affidavit filed by the informant as well as the injured witnesses and submitted that although some of the injured persons have sustained some injuries however, there have recovered in the meantime and they are hale and hearty. He further referred to the affidavit filed by the injured persons and submitted before this Court that the injured persons are also not interested in further continuance of the present criminal proceeding in view of the aforesaid amicable settlement between both sides. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Informant contended that the informant and the injured persons who have been arrayed as Opposite party Nos.3 to 5 have no objection in the event the criminal proceeding is brought to an end by this Court inherent jurisdiction of this power. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged a police case was registered and the investigation was started immediately. She further contended that taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the allegation, the criminal proceeding should not be quashed. However, she further contended that since the matter has been amicably resolved and the parties have settled the dispute on compromise and in support of such contention she also referred to the letter of the IIC of Gop P.S. dated 31.08.2025 and contended before this Court that Page 3 of 5. the IIC has informed that both sides have settled their dispute on compromise and that the affidavits filed before this Court by the informant and the injured persons are genuine. It has also been indicated in the said instruction letter dated 31.08.2025, a copy of which was presented before this Court, that the settlement is voluntary and without any threat of action and that injury sustained by injured persons are simple in nature. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that in the event this Court passed any appropriate order in exercise of its inherent power, keeping in view the aforesaid development, she will have no objection to the same. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking note of the subsequent development and on a close scrutiny of the affidavit filed on behalf of the informant as well as injured-Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 and further keeping in view the instruction of the IIC of Gop PS dated 31.08.2025, this Court observes that although an F.I.R. was registered at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2 alleging commission of the crime during the last general election, however both sides have resolved the dispute amicably and they are living peacefully in the locality and have a cordial relationship at present. It also appears that the injured persons have not sustained any grievous injury, as is evident from affidavit such injured person as well as the letter of the IIC of Gop PS dated 31.08.2025. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that an offence under Section 307 is not made out. Therefore, the offence under Section 307 is quashed. So far as the other offences are concerned, keeping in view the fact that the matter has Page 4 of 5. been settled amicably and that the parties are residing peacefully in the locality, this Curt is of the view that present case is a fit case where inherent power of this Court can be exercised to bring peace and tranquillity in the locality which is would be in the larger interest of justice. Moreover, since the informant and injured persons are not interested in pursuing the matter, sending the matter for trial would cause wastage of valuable judicial time. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is inclined to quash the entire proceeding. Hence, the criminal proceeding arising out of Gop P.S. Case No. 75 of 2024 which corresponds to G.R. Case No.132 of 2024 is hereby quashed. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC stands allowed. Rubi ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2025 13:45:16