The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3655 of 2025 Dibyahuti Ray & another ..... Petitioners State Of Odisha & Others -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Bijaya Kumar Behera 1 Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. U.R.Jena, A.G.A. Hemanta Kumar Ratsingh, Adv. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 18.11.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode). 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the 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., 2023 which corresponds to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the Petitioners seek quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Jajpur P.S. Case No.07 of 2024 which corresponds to C.T. Case No.48 of 2024 now pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur which was registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 469, 406 and 34 of I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that Page 1 of 5. the Petitioner No.1 is the donor of the institution under the Mo College Abhijan scheme of the Govt. of Odisha and the Petitioner No.2 is the resident of the governing body of Chitalo Degree Mohavidyalaya, Jajpur. He further contended that due to a misunderstanding among the parties the present F.I.R. was registered. However, in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled and that the informant and the victim do not want to proceed further in the present case. It was also contended that there is no outstanding amount payable to the institution in question. As such, the entire criminal proceeding be quashed. 5. The prosecution story in short is that an F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of the principal of the institution in question i.e. Opposite Party No.2 on 05.01.2025 alleging misappropriation of college fund by the former president of the Governing Body i.e. the Petitioner No.2. In the aforesaid F.I.R., the Petitioner No.1, who happens to be a donor of the institution in question for its betterment under the Mo College Abhijan scheme has also been arrayed as an accused along with the Petitioner No.2. As per the F.I.R. allegation when the Petitioner No.2 was the president of the Governing Body of the college i.e. from 05.05.2018 to 16.10.2022, certain funds were received by the institution for its development. Further, it has been alleged that the Petitioner No.2, by misusing his official position, has misappropriated the developmental fund belonging to the college. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at this juncture contended that the allegation made in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated. It was also contended that there is serious dispute with regard to the constitution of the Governing Body and as to who will be the president of such governing body. Several litigations regarding the same, including a few before this Hon’ble Court are pending in the shape of writ Page 2 of 5. application. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that as per the specific allegation in the F.I.R. it is alleged that the Petitioners had misappropriated a sum of Rs.10 lakhs which was received for the development of college. It has been further alleged that such amount was transferred to the account of the daughter of the Petitioner No.2 i.e. Petitioner No.1. He further contended that apart from the above allegation there is no other allegation against the Opposite party No.1. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the F.I.R. itself reveals that out of Rs.10lakhs a sum of Rs.09,50,000/- has already been refunded to the college. Therefore, the misappropriated amount as has been alleged in the F.I.R. now stands at Rs.50,000/-. He further submitted that the aforesaid amount has already been recovered from the Petitioners by the college. As such, there was no misappropriation by the Petitioners. He further contended that in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled between the Petitioners and informant and that the informant does not want to proceed further against the present Petitioners. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that further continuance of the present proceeding would be an abuse of the process of law. Hence, learned counsel for the Petitioners prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant-Opposite party No.2, while supporting the contentions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, referred to the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 which are filed on 08.10.2025. Referring to the aforesaid affidavit, learned counsel for the Private Opposite Parties contended Page 3 of 5. that the matter has already been amicably settled and that there is no due recoverable from the Petitioners. He further submitted that the dispute has been amicably settled in the meantime and that the informant-Opposite Party No.2 does not want to proceed further in the criminal case. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he does not have any specific instruction on the affidavit filed by the parties indicating therein the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled, however, on perusal of the instruction received from the concerned police station it appears that there exists a series of litigation with regard to the activities of the institution in question. He further submitted that there exists a dispute with regard to the constitution of the Governing Body of the institution and several litigations regarding the same are also pending before this Court. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that since the informant does not want to proceed further in this case, as stated by the learned counsel for the informant and as supported by the affidavit of the informant, he will have no objection in the event this Court passes any appropriate order securing the ends of justice. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as on a careful scrutiny of the allegation made in the F.I.R., this Court found that the out of the offences alleged against the Petitioners offences under Section 420 and 406 are compoundable in nature. So far, the offence under Section 469 of the I.P.C. is concerned, though the same is non- compoundable in nature, however, it is a bailable offence and the maximum punishment inflicted under the Section is three years of Page 4 of 5. imprisonment. On a careful scrutiny of the allegation made in the F.I.R., this Court observes that while accepting the F.I.R. no case under Section 469 of the I.P.C. is made out. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the offence under Section 469 of the I.P.C. So far, the offences under Sections 420, 406, 34 I.P.C. are concerned, the same being compoundable in nature, and keeping in view the subsequent development in this case i.e. the amicable settlement of dispute between them, the parties are granted liberty to approach the learned trial court by filing an application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. for compounding of such offences within a period of two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the learned trial court shall consider the same and dispose of such application in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter, after taking into consideration the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC
Decision
application stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 20-Nov-2025 11:10:02