The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2975 of 2024 Subhrakanta Jena ..... 1) State Of Odisha 2) Rasmita Prusty -versus- ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Chandan Samantaray Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. - Nirmal Kumar Sen A.P.Das, A.S.C.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 04.09.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The present application has been filed by invoking the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No.80 of 2024 corresponding to Kharabelnagar P.S. Case No.20 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offences under Section 328, 376 (2) (n), 342, 506, 385, 379 and 294 of the I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the complainant is in the habit of lodging false cases against many Page 1 of 4. innocent persons and then blackmailing them. He further contended that prior to the registration of case against the present petitioner, the complainant had also earlier lodged cases against some other persons. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing attention of this Court to Para-5 of the application, stated that the Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.215 of 2023 as well as Nikirei P.S. Case No.207 of 2021 has also been registered at the instance of the present informant. He further submitted that the petitioner has been victimised in the present case at the instance of the informant and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the present criminal proceeding, the petitioner has settled the matter amicably with the informant and they have arrived at a compromise. He further stated that as per the terms of the compromise the informant does not want to proceed any further in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand supported the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and as a result of such amicable settlement, the informant does not object to the quashing of the present proceeding as well as the release of the petitioner on bail. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the informant also referred to the affidavit filed before this Court on 09.08.2024 by the informant which has been sworn before the Oath Commissioner of this Court. On perusal of the said affidavit it appears that the informant has stated that on intervention of the well- wishers of the parties and family friends, the dispute has been settled amicably and the informant does not have any objection if the F.I.R./charge sheet is quashed in the present case. He further stated Page 2 of 4. that the similar affidavit has also been filed before the trial court on 01.05.2024. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the informant submitted that the informant does not want to oppose the prayer of the petitioner in the present application. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, cases involving offences of heinous nature or crimes against the society cannot be quashed on the ground of the compromise. He further submitted that in the present case an allegation being made Section 376 of the I.P.C., the F.I.R./proceeding cannot be quashed. Therefore, the present application of the petitioner should be rejected at this juncture. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further taking into note of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh’s Case (Supra). This Court is not inclined to entertain the present CRLMC application of the petitioner at this stage. However, the parties are directed to approach the trial court for an early conclusion of the trial. Accordingly, they are directed to cooperate with the trial court for an early conclusion of the trial. In the event parties approach the trial Court with a copy of today’s order within two weeks from today, the learned trial court shall do well to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. 8. Further taking note of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner apprehends his arrest in Page 3 of 4. connection with the present case, the petitioner is given liberty to move a bail application within two weeks from today. In such eventuality the petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable. 9. Case Diary be made available to the concerned courts. Records be transmitted to the higher forum at the cost of the Petitioner, if applied for. 10. While considering the bail application of the petitioner the learned court below shall take note of the aforesaid developments and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC stands disposed of. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2024 11:14:17 Page 4 of 4.