The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2636 of 2024 An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -------------- 1. Sarbeswar Behura 2. Abhishek Behura ..…. Petitioners -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Rina Sethy …… Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Advocate For Petitioners (for petitioner no.1) Mr. Md. Golam Madani, Advocate (for petitioner no.2) For Opp. Party ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, A.S.C. CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 20.09.2024 Savitri Ratho, J This is the second application of the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 11.08.2022 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jajpur in C.T. (Special) No. 106 of 2022 arising out of Dharmasala P.S. Case No. 261 of 2022 for commission of offences under Sections 341, 294, 506, 34 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. CRLMC No. 2636 of 2024 Page 1 of 6 2. The prosecution allegation in brief is that on 10.05.2022 at about 5.00 p.m., while the informant was passing through the village road, the petitioners, who were standing on the road side, abused the informant and made caste related aspersions. It was alleged that the petitioners did so due to their previous animosity during elections. 3. CRLMC No. 3641 of 2022 filed earlier has been dismissed as withdrawn on 16.02.2023. 4. In paragraph 2 of order dated 16.08.2024 in CRLMC No. 2636 of 2024 it is stated as follows:- “2. Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier application CRLMC No. 3641 of 2022 has been filed with the same prayer on the ground that the matter had been settled between the parties, but since the opposite party no.2 did not agree to file the compromise affidavit before the Court the CRLMC has been withdrawn on 16.02.2023. Thereafter, the parties have realized the mistakes and have settled the dispute between them and opposite party no.2 had decided not to proceed with the matter. She has also filed an affidavit to that effect.” 5. The petitioners Sarbeswar Behura and Abhishek Behura, and opposite party no.2- informant Rina Sethy, W/o. Sashibhusana CRLMC No. 2636 of 2024 Page 2 of 6 Sethy are physically present in Court today. They have produced the Photostat copy of their Aadhaar Cards in proof of their identity which are taken on record. They are duly identified by Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners as Mr. Md. Golam Madani, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2- informant is appearing through virtual mode. 6. Both the petitioners as well as the opposite party no.2 state that the case was registered on account of trivial incident regarding pasting of posters during the Panchayat Election. Due to intervention of the elders and the village gentries, the matter has been settled between them and the informant-victim does not want to proceed any further with the case. An affidavit to that effect has been filed on her behalf, copy of which has been served on the learned State Counsel. 7. A report has been received from the I.I.C., Dharmasala police Station who has stated that on verification it is ascertained that the informant has stated that she has signed the affidavit without any threat or coercion from anybody and has also given the statement to that effect. 8. Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the Opp. Party No.2 had previous enmity between them due to different political affiliations. CRLMC No. 2636 of 2024 Page 3 of 6 On the day of occurrence there was some heated exchange of words and abuse between both the parties. However, in the meantime both the parties have realized their mistakes they have settled the dispute between them amicably. Consequently, disputes between both the parties have been settled and the Opp. Party No.2 has also decided not to proceed with the matter. He further submits that the parties having settled the matter between themselves, it would be an abuse of process of Court if the case is allowed to proceed further. He also submits that the alleged offences do not involve heinousness and mental depravity, even though some of them are under the SC and ST (PoA) Act. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : AIR 2021 SC 5228, the proceedings including minor offences under the SC & ST (PoA) Act can be quashed if there is an amicable settlement between the parties. 9. Mr. Md. Golam Madani, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-informant submits that waiving notice the informant has entered appearance through counsel and filed an affidavit stating that the petitioners are co-villagers and the dispute between them has been settled amicably and they are maintaining cordial relations and in view of the changed circumstances, she does not want to proceed against the petitioner in Dharmasala P.S. Case No. 261 of CRLMC No. 2636 of 2024 Page 4 of 6 2022, for which the proceeding may be quashed. Copy of the affidavit has been served on the learned State Counsel. 10. Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State has also no objection in view of the settlement between the parties. 11. In the case of Ramawatar (supra) the Supreme Court has held :- “16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers Under Article l42 of the Constitution or Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.” CRLMC No. 2636 of 2024 Page 5 of 6 12. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, since the case arises out of a trivial incident which has been amicably settled between the parties and the opp. party no.2 is no more interested to pursue the case against the petitioners, I am satisfied that it would be an exercise in futility if the accused persons are compelled to face trial. It would also result in wastage of valuable time of the Court. 13. In view of the above discussion and the decision of the Supreme Court, I direct that the criminal proceeding in C.T. (Special) No. 106 of 2022 arising out of Dharmasala P.S. Case No. 261 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Jajpur so far as the petitioners are concerned, be quashed. 14.
Decision
The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 20th September, 2024. S.K. Behera, Senior Stenographer. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 25-Jan-2025 16:41:00 CRLMC No. 2636 of 2024 Page 6 of 6