The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3956 of 2024 & CRLREV No.65 of 2020 Himanshu Pradhan @ Himanshu Sekhar Pradhan & others …. Petitioners Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Parties -versus- Mr.Bibekananda Nayak AGA Mr.J.K.Padhi, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
Order No. 07. 1. Heard. ORDER 10.03.2025 2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Jaleswar P.S. Case No.32 of 2014 corresponding to Special Case No.294 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 341/ 323/ 294/34 of the IPC r/w Section 3 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (SC & ST), Balasore came to be registered against the petitioners. Page 1 of 5 3. The opposite party No.2 reported at Jaleswar P.S. alleging therein that on 29.01.2024, while he was going to the nearby shop, on his way, near the house of one Shyamasundar Patra, the petitioners restrained him and asked him the outstanding amount towards ploughing. He told that, he would pay it later, but without listening to him, they abused him by taking his caste as SALA KANDARA and assaulted him and told that if he could not pay the money, he would be their servant. Then the petitioners took him to their house and assaulted him brutally. Hence, the F.I.R. 4. After the investigation, the charge sheet in the present case has already been filed on 27.11.2017 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/294/506/34 of the IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. 5. The petitioners moved an application seeking discharge and the said application was turned down by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 18.01.2020. The said order has been assailed by the petitioners by filing the Criminal Revision No.65 of 2020. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.06.2022 stayed the trial Court proceedings. Therefore, even after the charge sheet is filed, the application for discharge moved by the petitioners has being rejected by the trial, the trial of the case has not yet been commenced. 6. When the matter stood thus, the parties have Page 2 of 5 entered into settlement. The opposite party No.2 has filed affidavit dated 19.02.2024 before this Court inter alia stating as under: “1. That, I am the informant of the above noted case. I had lodged F.I.R. bearing Jaleswar P.S. Case No.32 of 2014 on 12.02.2014 U/S. 341, 323, 294 and 24 IPC and 3 SC/ST (PA) Act against (1) Himansu Pradhan, S/o. Late Bimbadhara Pradhan, (2) Amruta Pradhan S/o. Himansu Pradhan, (3) Subrata Pradhan, S/o. Sudhansu Sekhar Pradhan, of vill. Salikotha, P.S.- Jaleswar, Dist- Baleswar and subsequently to Spl. Case No.294/2016 which is pending before this Court. converted is it 2. That, at the stage of framing Charge Honourable High Court has stayed further proceeding vide CRLREV No.65 of 2020 on 30.06.2022. The certified copy of the said order is already on record. 3. That, now the dispute between us has been settled outside the court in presence of village gentries. So I have no allegations against them and also I will not blame the accused persons for the aforementioned case in further.” 7. All the petitioners and the opposite party No.2 are present before this Court through V.C. mode being represented by their respective counsel and identified by them. They have also filed the photocopies of their self-attested Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. 8. On the query from the Court, the opposite party NO.2 states that the petitioners are their co-villagers. Due to sudden provocation, the F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioners. However, to maintain peace and tranquility in the locality, they have settled the dispute. Therefore, the opposite party Page 3 of 5 No.2 is will not willing to prosecute the petitioners any more in the present case. 9. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that in the present case, the allegations are minor in nature and the parties have settled the dispute and the opposite party No.2 has also filed the affidavit to that effect, therefore, this Court may give indulgence to the petitioners, as there is no legal impediment in quashing the present F.I.R. 10. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have settled their dispute with help of the well-wishers and co-villagers to maintain peace and tranquility in the area. They have entered into a settlement and the fact that the dispute is inter se parties, I am inclined to allow the present petition. In the fact scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of trial is destined to be a futile exercise. The present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303; B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition deserves merit. 11. Taking into consideration the aforementioned Page 4 of 5 judgments, the facts of the case and submissions made at the Bar, in CRLMC No.3956 of 2024, the F.I.R. in connection with Jaleswar P.S. Case No.32 of 2014 corresponding to Special Case No.294 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (SC & ST), Balasore and in CRLREV No.65 of 2020, the F.I.R. in connection with Jaleswar P.S. Case No.32 of 2014 corresponding to Special Case No.294 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (SC & ST), Balasore and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed. 12. The CRLMC and the CRLREV are accordingly disposed of. Judge Subhasis (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 10-Mar-2025 20:25:26 Page 5 of 5