The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3301 of 2025 ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Bijay Kumar Behera 1) Mahendra Sasmal 2) Sailendra Rout 3) Satyajit Sasmal 4) Rajat Bhanja @ Rohit Bhanja 5) R. Lokanath Patra 6) Purna Chandra Senapati @ Tikina 7) Sanjay Samal 8) Dillip Mohapatra 1) State Of Odisha 2) Mamata Pani 3) Santosh Kumar Panda -versus- ..... Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv. – Mr. U.R.Jena, A.G.A. Abhiram Gouda S.s.paikray L.subudhi CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 23.09.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. the Petitioners seek to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No.2112 of 2024 which corresponds to Mancheswar P.S. Case No.663 of 2024 and now pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.-II, Bhubaneswar. Page 1 of 4. The abovenoted criminal proceeding was initiated on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged before the Mancheswar police station on 03.12.2024 for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 140(1)/ 308(4)/ 109(1)/ 3(5) of B.N.S. The Opposite Party No.2 as informant lodged the F.I.R. before the Mancheswar police station alleging assault on her husband at the instance of the accused-petitioner. It has also been alleged that the accused persons assaulted the victim by means of an iron rod, bhujali and pipe. As a result, the victim has sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter, the victim was shifted to the hospital. She has also alleged in the F.I.R. that there exists a previous rivalry between her husband (victim) and the accused with regard to the land bill. 4. Upon the registration of the F.I.R., investigation in the matter is continuing, however no charge sheet has been field as of now. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the Petitioners and the victim are known to each other. He further submitted that due to a misunderstanding between the two, a scruple took place between them. He further contended that in the meantime, with the intervention of the local gentries and well-wishers of both sides the matter has been amicably settled and the same has been reduced to writing. He further submitted that the victim as well as the informant do not want to proceed further in this case. Accordingly, a joint affidavit has also been field before this Court by the parties. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the entire criminal proceeding be quashed as the same would be in the larger interest of justice and would lead to maintaining peace and tranquillity in the locality. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant has also supported the stand taken by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. Further, referring to Page 2 of 4. the joint affidavit filed by the opposite party No.2-informant, he submitted that the informant has admitted the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and that she has categorically stated that the informant and victim do not want to proceed further in this Case. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the Opposite party No.2 that he will have no objection in the event the entire proceeding is quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the prayer made in the present application on the ground that taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of allegation the proceeding should not be quashed. He further submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court he has taken instruction from the IIC of the concerned police station. Basing upon the instruction of the IIC of the Mancheswar PS vide letter No.5543 dated 15.09.2025, learned counsel for the State further contended that the IIC in his letter has instructed that the matter has been settled/compromised between the parties. A copy of the “faisalanama” (compromise) has also been attached to the instruction send by the IIC of the concerned police station. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, further on a careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the joint affidavit filed by the parties as well as the instruction dated 15.09.2025 of the IIC Mancheswar PS, this Court observes that the parties have arrived at a compromise. However, the question of consideration as to whether the entire criminal proceeding should be quashed on the basis of the aforesaid compromise. On a careful scrutiny of the allegation made against the petitioners, this Court found that an allegation has been Page 3 of 4. made for commission of an offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The victim had sustained injuries for which he had undergone treatment. On a specific query by this Court to the learned counsel for the Informant, the learned counsel for the informant has stated that the victim had sustained injuries for which he was undergoing treatment, however, he has been discharged in the meantime from the hospital. He further contended that the victim is now hale and hearty. 9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid development in the matter, further keeping in view the fact that the matter has been compromised and that the parties are living peacefully in the locality, this Court in the larger interest of justice is inclined to exercise its inherent power for quashing of the criminal proceeding, by treating the present case on an exceptional case and exercise of such inherent power would secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding arising out of Mancheswar P.S. Case No.663 of 2024 which corresponds to C.T. Case No.2112 of 2024 is hereby quashed. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC stands disposed of. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 4 of 4. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-Sep-2025 15:26:33