The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC NO.2145 of 2018 (In the matter of application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). Bijay Ku. Singh … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and Another … Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Tripathy, Advocate For Opposite Parties CORAM: : Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA Mr. B.S. Dasparida, Advocate for Informant JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING :31.03.2023 DATE OF JUDGMENT :12.04.2023 G. Satapathy, J. 1. The prayer made in the CRLMC is to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner and the order taking cognizance passed on 17.02.2018 by the learned S.D.J.M., Baripada in G.R. Case No.965 of 2017 on the ground of compromise. CRLMC No.2145 of 2018 Page 1 of 8
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, who by filing the certified copy of police papers in G.R. case No.965 of 2017 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Baripada, submits to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioner as well as the cognizance order by taking into consideration the compromise made by Petitioner and the Informant, to which Mr. B.S. Dasparida, learned counsel appearing for the Informant does not dispute and he inter-alia submits that the Informant has filed an affidavit stating therein her satisfaction with respect to compromise entered into by her with the Petitioner. 3. Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned AGA, submits that although the offence U/Ss.323/417/506 of IPC are compoundable offences, but the offence U/S.493 of IPC is not compoundable in nature and in the circumstance, since Section 493 of IPC is an offence of moral turpitude, the criminal proceeding with aforesaid offence should not be quashed as an abuse CRLMC No.2145 of 2018 Page 2 of 8 of process of the Court. Learned AGA, accordingly, prays to dismiss the CRLMC. 4. On coming back to the factual aspect, it is not disputed that the informant has lodged an FIR against the petitioner for commission of offences U/Ss.498- A/494/312/313/323/294/506/379/34 of IPC, but after investigation in the matter, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.493/417/323/506 of IPC under which cognizance has been taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Baripada vide order dated 17.02.2018 in G.R. Case No.965 of 2017, out of these offences, offence U/Ss.417/323/506 of IPC are compoundable in nature, whereas the offence U/S.493 of IPC is neither cognizable nor compoundable. What cannot, however, be kept aside in this case is that the informant being duly identified by her counsel, had appeared before this Court and submitted that she has filed an affidavit on 08.03.2019 indicating therein CRLMC No.2145 of 2018 Page 3 of 8 about amicable settlement of the matter between her and the petitioner. She also categorically stated that she has got no objection, if the proceeding, which is initiated by her against the petitioner is dropped as she wants to start a new life. 5. Law is well settled that power to quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power of a criminal Court compounding the offence U/S.320 of the Cr.P.C. and cases which can be quashed on the ground of settlement of dispute depend on facts and circumstance of individual case, but heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or under special statues like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servant while working in their capacity as a public servant, cannot be quashed even though the victim or victim’s family member and offender have settled the dispute amicably. It is undisputed that inherent power has wide plentitude with no statutory limitation, but it has to be exercised CRLMC No.2145 of 2018 Page 4 of 8 in accordance with the law viz. to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. What cases can be quashed on compromise between the parties, cannot be precisely prescribed or no inflexible guidelines can be laid down, but the criminal proceeding in suitable cases can be quashed, if in view of compromise between the offender and the victim, there would be remote and bleak possibility of conviction of the offender and, thereby, the continuation of criminal case would be a futile exercise powers of the Court, which would in any way prevent the wastage of time of the Court. It is, however, clarified that offences of mental depravity by no stretch of imagination can be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. 6. In this case, the narration of facts and allegation on record, however, depict a sensitive picture of love, marriage, co-habitation, cheating and separation of a man and woman, no matter the Investigating Agency, of course, has considered the marriage to be CRLMC No.2145 of 2018 Page 5 of 8 invalid marriage. Be that as it may, the petitioner and the informant are sufficiently educated to realize the consequence of the allegations, but the informant by way of an affidavit has stated before this Court about settlement of dispute between them and she expresses her intention not to proceed against the petitioner. For a moment, if the petitioner is sent up for trial, what would be the inevitable consequence in a case of this nature, when the victim does not support the prosecution case, is well known to everyone, which in anyway would render the trial futile resulting in remote or bleak possibility of conviction. In this case, leaving the victim, there are four other witnesses including the I.O. Of whom, none speaks against the petitioner for the allegation with respect to offence U/S.493 of IPC. In such situation, if the evidence of victim is eschewed, there would be very remote or even no possibility of the case ending in conviction of the petitioner and in this case, the stand of the informant itself is very clear CRLMC No.2145 of 2018 Page 6 of 8 that she has settled the matter with the petitioner and wants the case against the petitioner be dropped, which might be due to informant possibly preferring to start a new life independently and afresh. It is also not in dispute that the victim is a grown up lady and she very much understands the consequence of the criminal case of this nature in her private life, but in that event, the quashing of criminal proceeding against the petitioner is not on merit, but due to compromise with the informant. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration the effect of compromise for offences U/Ss.493/417/323/506 of IPC, out of which, except offence U/S.493 of IPC, rest are compoundable in nature and keeping in view the compromise by the informant and the petitioner in this case, there appears hardly remote or bleak possibility of conviction of the petitioner and, thereby, the continuation of criminal case against the petitioner is considered to be wastage of time of the Court, which CRLMC No.2145 of 2018 Page 7 of 8 persuades this Court to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, the order passed on 17.02.2018 by learned S.D.J.M., Baripada in G.R. Case No.965 of 2017 and consequently, the criminal proceeding arising thereon against the petitioner are hereby quashed. 8. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed to the extend indicated above, but in circumstance, there is
Decision
no order as to costs. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 12th of April, 2023/Subhasmita CRLMC No.2145 of 2018 Page 8 of 8