In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3923 of 2024 Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -------------- 1. Saroj Kumar Sethy 2. Soumya Ranjan Sethi 3. Dhaneswar Jena 4. Santha Harichandan @ Samir Jagdeb 5. Rabindra Harichandan 6. Kandu @ Sangramme Keshari Harichandan 1. State of Odisha 2. Bijay Behera -versus- ….. ….. Petitioners Opposite Parties For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Kalpataru Khuntia, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA Mr. Debasis Sahoo, Advocate (for O.P. No.2) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 02.05.2025 Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMC has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 23.11.2020 passed in G.R. Case No. 755 of 2020 by the learned JMFC (cog taking), Khurda which arises out of Jankia P.S. Case No. 132 of 2020. CRLMC No.3923 of 2024 Page 1 of 6 2. Perusal of the Annexure-1 in CRLMC No. 2923 of 2024 which is the copy of the order dated 23.11.2020 reveals that cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 448, 294, 323, 354, 379, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC has been taken against the petitioners by the learned J.M.F.C. (Cog Taking), Khurda. 3. Joint affidavit has been filed by the petitioners and the opposite party no.2-informant, stating that the matters have been amicably settled between them on the intervention of villagers and local gentry and the parties are living peacefully and have no enmity with each other and the informants do not want to proceed against the petitioners and have no objection if the criminal proceeding against the petitioners are quashed. 4. Mr. U.R. Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate produced the instructions dated 02.05.2025 of the IIC Jankia P.S., Khordha in Jankia P.S. Case No. 132 of 2020, where it is stated that he inquired about the credibility of the joint affidavit in the presence of village gentries and local Sarpanch and found it to be genuine and that the parties are now living peacefully in the village and have settled the dispute. The instructions are taken on record. CRLMC No.3923 of 2024 Page 2 of 6 5. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab : 2012 (10) SCC 303, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had referred the matter to a larger Bench .The three judge Bench answered the reference holding as follows :- “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any CRLMC No.3923 of 2024 Page 3 of 6 compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, CRLMC No.3923 of 2024 Page 4 of 6 it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 6. The petitioners and the informant’s family are co-villagers. There was civil dispute between the parties leading to filing of different cases by both sides . Petitioner No. 1 had filed demarcation case before the Tahasildar Khurda in the year 2019 . After demarcation was done , the petitioner had filed a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C against Bijay Behera on 18.05.2020 and restrain order was passed on the next day i.e 19.05.2020 .On 2.06.2020 a proceeding under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C has been initiated by Petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 has also lodged FIR against Bijay Behera leading to registration of Jankia P.S. case No. 131 of 2020. Thereafter Bijay Behera lodged FIR leading to registration of Jankia P.S case No 132 of 2020 against some of the petitioner. FIR has been lodged by one Puspanjali Harichandan leading to registration of jankia P.S Case No 136 of 2020 against Bijay Behera and others .Thereafter FIR has been lodged by opposite Party No..2 Bidulata Behera leading to registration of Jankia P.S Case No 137 of 2020 against the present CRLMC No.3923 of 2024 Page 5 of 6 petitioners .. With the intervention of village gentry , the dispute between them is stated to have been settled . CRLMC No. 3926 of 2024 has been filed for quashing the proceedings in T.R. case No 33 of 2020 in the Court of the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge Khurda arising out of jankia P.S. case No 137 of 2020 . 07. It is apparent from a perusal of the FIR and joint affidavit that due to misunderstanding and previous dispute , the FIR in Jankia P.S case No 137 of 2020 had been filed and now the matter has been amicably settled . The dispute was personal in nature and no public interest is involved. 08. In view of the amicable settlement between the parties and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh ( supra), the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 755 of 2020 by the learned JMFC (cog taking), Khurda arising out of Jankia P.S. Case No. 132 of 2020 is quashed.
Decision
09. The CRLMC is disposed of . ………………… (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 23-May-2025 19:05:12 Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 2nd May, 2025. puspa CRLMC No.3923 of 2024 Page 6 of 6