The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2887 of 2025 Sudarsan Majhi @ Majhi Sudarsan@ M. Sudarsan & Anr. ..... Petitioners State Of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Soubhagya Kumar Dash Opp. Parties Represented By Adv. – S.K. Brahma, A.S.C. Abhishek Mohanty, Adv. for the O.P. Nos.2 & 3 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 18.09.2025 I.A. No.2651 of 2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. This I.A. has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking modification of order dated 11.09.2025. 3. Considering the submissions made, the order dated 11.09.2025 is hereby recalled. 4.
Decision
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of. CRLMC No.2887 of 2025 5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 (Informant and Injured), and Page 1 of 6. Order No. 04. learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party No.1. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 6. The present application has been filed by the Petitioners by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.51 of 2024, arising out of Kasinagar P.S. Case No.69 of 2024, pending in the file of learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Gajapati at Parlakhemundi. 7. The above noted criminal case was initiated at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2-Informant for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/325/294/506/307/34 of the IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989. 8. On perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the Opposite Party No.2-Informant lodged a report before the IIC, Kasinagar Police Station alleging that on 02.05.2024 the accused persons came to the spot and assaulted the Informant and other persons, as a result of the aforesaid assault, the Informant as well as the Injured-Opposite Party No.3 has sustained fracture injuries, which have been shown to be grievous in the medical report. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that due to a misunderstanding between the Petitioners and the Informant group, the aforesaid incident had taken place. He further submitted that in the meantime matter has been amicably resolved and that they have good relationship. In the aforesaid context, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, referring to the compromise affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2, submitted before this Page 2 of 6. Court that due to intervention of well-wishers, local gentries and family members, the matter has been amicably resolved. He further contended that the Informant has categorically stated in the affidavit that she does not want to proceed in this case. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that in the larger interest of justice, the entire criminal proceeding be quashed. It is also contended that the Petitioners do not have any criminal antecedent and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. 10. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant as well as Opposite Party No.3-Injuured, on the other hand, submitted that although the Informant and Injured have sustained injury, however those are facture injuries and same has been shown in the medical report as grievous in nature. He further submitted that in the meantime they have recovered and they are hale and hearty at the moment. Learned counsel for the Informant further contended that due to intervention of the local gentries and well-wishers of the parties, the matter has been compromised and the Informant and Injured do not want to proceed further in this case. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 referred to the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2 which was sworn before the Oath Commissioner of this Court on 28.07.2025. On such ground, learned counsel for the Informant contended that he does not have any objection in the event this Court quashes the entire criminal proceeding pending against the Petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although the matter has been compromised between the parties, as is evident from the compromise affidavit filed in this case, Page 3 of 6. however taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the allegation as well as the nature of the injury sustained by the injured, this Court should not entertain this application and that the criminal proceeding should not be quashed. He further submitted that there are ample materials available on record for which the Petitioners are required to face the trial instead of curtailing the investigation at this preliminary stage. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present CRLMC application is devoid of merit and, hence, the same be dismissed. 12. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, further taking note of the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2 and the instruction obtained pursuant to this Court’s earlier direction to the learned counsel for the State with regard to geniuses of the affidavit and the fact of the compromise as has been pleaded by both sides, this Court found that the matter has been compromised between both sides and such finding gets support from the instruction vide letter dated 26.08.2025 of the I/C DSP Kashinagar P.S. to the office of the Advocate General. A copy of which was produced before this Court in course of hearing. 13. On Perusal of the said letter, it appears that concerned IIC inquired in the locality and on examination of both sides, it is ascertained that both the parties have amicably settled their issue and are living peacefully in the village. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid instruction by the IIC of the concerned Police Station, this Court has come to a conclusion that the matter has been settled and the parties are indeed living peacefully in their locality. Page 4 of 6. 14. In view of the aforesaid development, the question which falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the present proceeding is to be quashed and the parties be allowed to live peacefully in the locality in view of the compromise or to reject the present application filed by the Petitioners thereby directing the Petitioners to face the trial in the present case. In the aforesaid context, this Court examined the nature of allegation as well as the injury sustained. Although the allegation has been made for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., which is non-compoundable in nature, however, it appears that the case has been registered under Section 307 of I.P.C. on the basis of the fact that the Informant and the Injured have sustained fracture injuries. However, in the meantime, they have recovered and are living peacefully in the locality. 15. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court is of the view that allowing the criminal proceeding to continue any further will result in allowing the bitterness to continue between both sides. Since the dispute has been settled amicably with the intervention of well-wishers and the local gentries by giving precedence to the peace and tranquillity in the locality, this Court is of the view that the matter should not be sent to trial, as the same would not serve the ends of justice. It further appears that since both the Informant and the Injured do not want to proceed further in this case, therefore, sending the case for trial would unnecessarily consume valuable time of the trial court who is otherwise burdened with huge pendency of cases awaiting trial. Moreover in view of the stand taken by the Informant and Injured, chance of conviction in the present case is very bleak. Page 5 of 6. 16. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that the present case is a fit case to exercise its inherent power to quash the entire proceeding and the same would not only be in the interest of justice, but also save valuable time of judiciary. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding launched against the Petitioners vide G.R. Case No.51 of 2024, which arises out of Kasinagar P.S. Case No.69 of 2024, pending in the file of learned Special Judge- cum-Sessions Judge, Gajapati at Parlakhemundi, is quashed, so far the present Petitioners are concerned. The learned Special Judge- cum-Sessions Judge, Gajapati at Parlakhemundi or the court in seisin over the matter shall, on receipt of this order/production of the certified copy of this order, shall close the proceeding in the aforesaid case in compliance of this order. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 19-Sep-2025 19:21:25