The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 4460 of 2024 Santilata Hota & another …. Petitioner(s) Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Party(s)
Legal Reasoning
Ms. S. Moharana, ASC Mr. A.K. Nayak, Advocate (O.P.No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 03. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 28.03.2025 Heard. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in Saheed Nagar P.S. Case No. 380 of 2016 came to be registered against the petitioners corresponding to C.T. Case No. 3008 of 2016, presently pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 02.07.2016 the informant lodged a written report before the IIC Saheed Nagar Police Station inter alia alleging therein that on 01.07.2016 at about 03:40PM while the informant along with her husband, younger brother and sister in law were consulted with some customers in their business godown namely Durga Timber Depot situated at G- Page 1 of 5 34, V.S.S. Nagar, P.S. Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, all of a sudden the petitioners along with two of their associates entered in to the said Timber. It is further alleged that the Petitioner No. 2 assaulted the husband of the informant by means of sword. It is also further alleged that before understanding anything the petitioner no-1 gave push blow on the husband of the informant for which he fell down and while the informant tried to rescue her husband, the petitioner no. 1 threw chili dust particles to her eyes and thereafter tied her neck by means of her skirt (PANATA KANl) with an intention to strangulate her. It is also further alleged that the petitioner No.-l with a shouted to the petitioner no-2 to kill the husband of the informant by using slang languages and that time the younger brother and the sister in law of the informant namely Sandhyarani Mishra being apprehending of danger to the life of the informant rescued her from the clutches of the petitioner nol. It is further alleged that on hearing hula when the inhabitants of the locality came and gathered the petitioners along with their associated fled away from the spot. Again it is alleged that the informant thereafter informed to the PCR and with the help of Police Officials the husband of the informant got admitted to the capital hospital for emergency treatment. Hence, the FIR. Page 2 of 5 4. The opposite party no.2 is the daughter of petitioner no.1 and sister of petitioner no.2. The charge sheet in the present case has been filed on 27.02.2017. However, cognizance of the offence has not yet been taken. The petitioners had been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2016 in ABLAPL No. 11478 of 2016. When the matter stood thus, the parties have entered into a settlement and on the basis of such settlement, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the entire criminal prosecution. 5. The petitioners and opposite party no.2 the informant are present in Court and being represented and identified by their respective counsels. They have also filed self-attested copies of their Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. Opposite party no.2 has also filed an affidavit dated 03.12.2024 inter alia stating as under:- “2. That I have lodged the FIR against my mother Santilata Hota, aged bout 65 years, wife of late Braja Kishore Hota and younger brother Sanjeeb Kumar Hota, son of Late Braja Kishore Hota. 3. That the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding between I and the accused persons. Now I and the accused persons (Mother and brother) are residing happily and peacefully in the society and there is no such ill feeling amongst us. Page 3 of 5 4. That it is further respectfully submitted that I don't have any objections if the case will be dropped/ quashed against the accused persons. 5. That the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I put my signature in this affidavit after read over and explained the contents of the affidavit in Odia language to me by my counsel and I found it correct as per my dictation. I sworn this affidavit out of my own volition, sweet will, without any fraud, coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation from any corner. 6. On the query from the Court, opposite partyno.2, who is present in Court submits that she has no grievance left with her mother and brother as they have settled the dispute amicably. Therefore, she joins with the petitioners praying for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution. 7. Ms. Moharana, learned counsel for the State submits that the parties are related and they have settled their dispute. More over the present proceeding is pending since 2016 and the trial is not at all proceeding in the present case. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceeding. 8. Regard being had to the allegation made by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner and the fact that they have settled the dispute and filed affidavit before this Court, I am inclined to allow the present petition. Further, continuation of the present Page 4 of 5 proceeding will not enure to the benefit to either parties and, therefore, in these circumstances subjecting the petitioners to rigors of the trial is destined to be futile exercise. The case of the petitioners are directly covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi & others vs. State of Haryana & another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675. 9. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with Saheed Nagar P.S. Case No. 380 of 2016 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 3008 of 2016, pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar is quashed. 10. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Mar-2025 14:16:08 Page 5 of 5