The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3652 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Sections 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) P. Laxmi Patra @ Palia Laxmi @ P. Laxmi and another ……. Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha and others ……. Opp. Parties For the petitioners : M/s. A.K. Pandey, D.N. Mishra, N. Acharya, V.V.B. Suryaprakash, Advocates For the opp. Parties : Mr. U.R. Jena, A.G.A. (O.P. No.1) Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate (For O.P. No.s.2 & 3) CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 07.12.2024 : : Date of Judgment: 04.03.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Sections 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings
Legal Reasoning
arising out of Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No. 140 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.942 of 2022 registered against the opposite parties no.2 and 3 by the petitioner no.1. 2. The petitioner no.1 is the informant and petitioner no.2 is the victim of the present case, approached this Court for quashing of the criminal prosecution initiated by them against the opposite parties no.2 and 3. The allegations made by the petitioners against the opposite parties no.2 and 3 are that on 11.05.2022 at 10.30 P.M. the petitioner no.1 being the complainant/informant lodged a written report before the police alleging therein that the daughter of her younger sister, P. Mohalaxmi’s (petitioner no.2 herein) has married with one A. Hadu Patra, elder son of A. Narayan Patra of Radhamatha Sahi Lanjipalli, Berhampur since last three years as per Hindu custom and ritual. After the marriage, husband A. Hadu Patra and mother-in-law, A. Mahalaxmi of the petitioner no.2 subjected her to torture both physically and mentally. In the meantime the couples have also been blessed with two children. Though a complaint was filed at Mahila Police Station against the husband and mother-in-law on 19.02.2022, subsequently the matter Page 2 of 16 was compromised in presence of IIC, Mahila Police Station. It is alleged that on 09.05.2022 the husband and mother-in-law of the petitioner no.2 (P. Mahalaxmi), namely, A. Hadu Patra and A. Mahalaxmi assaulted her and poured kerosene and set her on fire with an intention to kill her. The petitioner no.2 was shifted to MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur for treatment with the help of the complainant and others. The F.I.R. has been registered on the aforementioned allegation. 3. Opposite party no.2 was in custody till 04.12.2024 and it is informed to this Court that subsequent thereto, opposite party no.2 has been enlarged on bail. Opposite party no.3, is the mother-in-law of the victim-petitioner no.2, who is 87 years old, has already been admitted to bail in the present case. The trial of this case is in progress. As many as nine witnesses have already been examined. The petitioner no.1 has been examined as P.W.2, whereas petitioner no.2 has been examined as P.W.1. The other vital witnesses of the prosecution have also been examined. At this stage, the informant and victim have approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire prosecution initiated by them against the opposite parties no.2 and 3. Page 3 of 16 4.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. U.R. Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate for State- opposite party no.1; and Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3. 5. Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that owing to the peculiarity of the present case this Court even at this stage should give indulgence and quash the entire criminal prosecution because the informant and victim have approached this Court and have filed the affidavit wriggling out of their statement made to the police as well as before the Court. He has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri and another v. State of U.P. and others1 and K. Bharati Devi and another v. State of Telengana and another2. In G. Sagar Suri (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “It was submitted by Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for the second respondent that the appellants have already filed an application in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate for their discharge and that this Court should not interfere in the 1 (2000) 2 SCC 636 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2695 Page 4 of 16 criminal proceedings which are at the threshold. We do not think that on filing of any application for discharge, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In this connection, reference may be made to two decisions of this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] and Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H. Chanchani [(1998) 7 SCC 698 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1704] wherein it has been specifically held that though the Magistrate trying a case has jurisdiction to discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against them when no offence has been made out against them and still why must they undergo the agony of a criminal trial.” Similarly, in K. Bharati Devi and another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “The reference was answered by the learned three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] . Speaking for the Bench, R.M. Lodha, J. (as his Lordship then was), observed thus : (SCC pp. 340-43, paras 57-61) “57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a Page 5 of 16 criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not Page 6 of 16 quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed. : 4 1 SCC (Cri) (2010) 59. B.S. Joshi [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] , Nikhil Merchant [Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858] , Manoj Sharma [Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 145] and Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] do illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said in B.S. that by quashing criminal proceedings Joshi [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC , Nikhil Merchant [Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858] , Manoj Sharma [Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 145] SCC and Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] this Court has compounded the non- compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment. (Cri) 848] (2010) (Cri) SCC 4 1 : the decisions