The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 4796 of 2024 Jyotiranjan Samantray …. Petitioner(s) Mr. D.K. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Party(s)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.N. Biswal, ASC Mr. G.B. Singh Advocate for O.P.Nos.2 and 3 CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 07.03.2025 Heard. At the instance of the opposite party No.3, the F.I.R. dated Order No. 02. 1. 2. 13.03.2024 in Marsaghai P.S. Case No.61 of 2024 came to be registered against the petitioner for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/323/294/506 of I.P.C. read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the informant being opposite party No.3 lodged a written report before the Marshaghai P.S alleging therein that on 03.07.2023, one girl of her village had married at Khardha Sahi Talasanga. Due to some cause, Page 1 of 7 Marshaghai police brought him to Marshaghai P.S., for which she along with her husband came to Marshaghai P.S. to see him and verify the cause. During visit to the police station, the IIC, the present petitioner met them and asked many questions about their caste and offended them. It is alleged that the IIC also hurled abuses in obscene languages by showing his service revolver and assaulted her husband by means of plastic pipe around 50 times and threatened her husband to immediately leave the police station. He also threatened her to make her as widow. Hence, the F.I.R. 4. The investigation in the present case is still going on. At this stage, the petitioner and the opposite parties have entered into a settlement. On the basis of the settlement terms, the present petition has been filed. 5. The petitioner and opposite party Nos.2 & 3 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. 6. The matter was taken up for hearing on 21.01.2025 and the following order was passed:- “1. Heard. 2. Issue notice. Page 2 of 7 the case 3. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite party No.1-State waives the notice. 4. Mr. Mohanty, and Mrs. Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State are directed to obtain a status report regarding the investigation of in connection with Marsaghai P.S. Case No.61 of 2024 corresponding to T.R. Case no.45 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara, by the next date. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Kendrapara is directed to supervise the investigation in the present case and submit the status report through the State counsel as directed. 6. List this matter on 30.01.2025.” 7. Pursuant to the afore referred order, the Superintendent of Police, Kendrapara has now filed a status report. The relevant part of status report being paragraphs-9, 10 & 11 are reproduced:- “9. That, on enquiry, it came to light that the said Muna @ Manoranjan Dalai is the brother-in-law of one Bharati Dalai (Ex-ZP member) and is active in village level politics in the area. He is an ill-reputed person and involved in one criminal case previously. For obvious reasons, even though he had no direct relation with Smt. Kunibala Behera or AloK Behera, he accompanied Smt. Kunibala Behera, w/o Alok Behera, to Marshaghai PS interfered in the matter and tried to influence and intimidate IIC Sri Samantaray. It is not known in what locus standi he had gone to PS to secure the release of Alok Behera without knowing the complete details about the case and the circumstances under which Alok Behera was picked up for questioning. Manoranjan Dalai @ Muna might have either, made such an allegation to get away from legal action for his alleged interference in the lawful discharge of duty by IIC Samantaray. 10. That, as regards the allegation that he was admitted in DHH, Kendrapada, due to beating by IIC, Jyoti Sdamantaray, which got a media coverage also, it was gathered from the treating physician Sk. Sahabuddin of DHH, Kendrapada Page 3 of 7 during investigation that Sri Dalai was treated in DHH, Kendrapada on that day for simple bruise injuries, which might have been caused due to his fall on the ground, and no point of time during the treatment, he (Manoranjan Dalai) had uttered the name of IIC Jyoti Ranjan Samantaray for beating him. 11. Thus, allegation of Kadambini Behera regarding assault and insult casting aspersion on caste of Sri Manoranjan Dalai etc. is not true.” The report reveals that the opposite party No.2, the injured although was admitted to the hospital but during his treatment, he has not made any allegation against the present petitioner. This Court was examining as to whether any custodial torture has been committed by the present petitioner, who was working as IIC, Marshaghai P.S. Since the petitioner is the police officer and the allegations are made against him that he has beaten up the informant while in custody in the police station, therefore, it was necessitated for this Court to pass the order dated 21.01.2025 directing the SP of the District to enquire. Pursuant thereto, the Superintendent of Police, Kendrapara has filed the status report. 8. It is submitted that, the parties have entered into a settlement and filed a joint affidavit (petitioner and opposite party no.2-victim) before this Court dated 21.01.2025, inter alia stating as under:- Page 4 of 7 “1. That, the opposite party no.3 who is the wife of the victim as well as the informant of the above case filed a written report before the IIC Marsaghai police station in which marsaghai ps case no - 61/2024,corresponding to the TR Case no — 45/2024 was registered against the present petitioner for the commission of the offences under section 341,323,294,506,of the IPG and section 25 of the Arms act reads with section 3(l)®,3(l)(s),3{2){va) of the SC and ST act and at present the above case is pending before the learned Dist and sessions judge ,kendrapara for the further proceeding. ,cum special judge 2. That, fact remains 1 (op-3)heard about the matter from unknown person and without ascertaining the reason and truth fullness of the information I lodged the report there after 1 ascertain from my husband about the incident and came to know from him the above matter is not absolutely correct there are some misunderstanding between them as because my husband is a social worker and always visited to the police station taking the problem of the people there was some misunderstanding which was settled there at the spot and we both having good relation and we are very cordial to each other for which I have no interest at all to proceed further in the above case for which we both of us without any force pressure etc filing this affidavit for quashing of the FIR and proceeding there on for ends of justice. 3. That, continuance of the above case before the court below is only the misuse of the court time ultimately the cases will be completed in acquittal for which to save the time and for the interest of both the parties the informant and the petitioner file this joint affidavit before this Hon’ble court for quashing of the FIR and proceeding there on.” 9. The opposite party No.2, being the injured has also filed a separate affidavit dated 21.01.2025. He also reiterated the same in his affidavit he inter alia has stated as under:- “1. That, the opposite party no -2 who is my wife and the informant in the above case filed a written report before the IIC Marsaghai police station in which marsaghai ps case no - 61/2024, corresponding to the TR Case no - 45/2024 was registered against the present petitioner for the commission Page 5 of 7 of the offences under section 341,323,294,506,of the IPC 25 of the Arms act reads with section and section 3(l)®,3(l)(s),3{2){va) of the SC and ST act and at present the above case is pending before the learned Dist and sessions judge ,cum special judge ,kendrapara for the further proceeding. 2. That, fact remains my wife heard about the matter from unknown person and without ascertaining the reason and truth fullness of the information I lodged the report there after 1 ascertain from my husband about the incident and came to know from him the above matter is not absolutely correct there are some misunderstanding between them as because my husband is a social worker and always visited to the police station taking the problem of the people there was some misunderstanding which was settled there at the spot and we both having good relation and we are very cordial to each other for which I have no interest at all to proceed further in the above case for which we both of us without any force pressure etc filing this affidavit for quashing of the FIR and proceeding there on for ends of justice. 3. That, continuance of the above case before the court below is only the misuse of the court time ultimately the cases will be completed in acquittal for which to save the time and for the interest of both the parties the informant and the petitioner file this joint affidavit before this hon’ble court for quashing of the FIR and proceeding there on 10. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the F.I.R. is at investigating stage and the parties have settled their dispute. The informant as well as the victim has separately filed the affidavits. The Superintendent of Police has preliminarily investigated the matter and found the fact not to be true. Regard being had to the same, there is no legal impediment in quashing the F.I.R. Page 6 of 7 11. I have taken into consideration all the facts scenario of the present case and attending circumstances of the case. I am of the considered view that subjecting the petitioner, who is a police officer to rigors of the trial in the present facts of the case, would be a futile exercise and it may have impact in his service career as well. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the petition with a caution that the petitioner shall be careful in the future. 12. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with Marsaghai P.S. Case No.61 of 2024 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 45 of 2024 pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara and the consequential proceeding arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed. 13. 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: 08-Mar-2025 14:06:36 Page 7 of 7