Orissa High Court
Pitabash Danta vs ) State Of Odisha on 12 August, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.117 of 2025
Pitabash Danta ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Jugala Kishore Panda
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Respondents
2) Tapan Kumar Parida Represented By Adv. -
Ranjan Dangri(husband Of
The Informant)
Mr.U.R.Jena, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
12.08.2025
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the
learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the
CRLMC Application as well as the prayer made in the
CRLMC Application.
3. By filing the present CRLMC application under section
482 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent
power of this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding
arising out of F.I.R. in G.R.Case No.1288 of 2020
corresponding to Olatpur P.S.Case No.62 of 2020 pending
Page 1 of 7.
in the court of the learned J.M.F.C.-III, Cuttack on the
ground that the matter has been amicably settled between
both sides.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset
contended that on the basis of an information lodged by
one Nayanabala Parida on 25.06.2020, the present FIR
was registered by the I.I.C. of Olatpur P.S., Cuttack. On
perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the dispute arose
amongst the family members on the occasion of Birth Day
of grandchild of the informant. It has also been added that
due to such discord the informant was assaulted by the
present Petitioner. Thereafter, the informant has lodged this
F.I.R. making allegations against the Petitioner. On the
basis of such allegation, a case was registered for
commission of offences under sections 294, 341, 323, 307,
354 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended
that most of the offences alleged against the Petitioner are
compoundable in nature except the offense under section
307, 354 of the Indian Penal Code, which are non-
compoundable in nature. He further submitted that so far
the allegation under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is
concerned, no case is made out under the said offence.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the injury
report submitted that the injured had sustained three
injuries, which are simple in nature. Copy of the injury
report filed in Court is taken on record.
6. While this was the position, the case was pending
Page 2 of 7.
since 2020. In the meantime, the informant passed away.
Thereafter, the family members including the husband of
the informant decided to resolve the dispute amicably and
live peacefully. Accordingly, a joint affidavit has been filed
before this Court by the husband of the informant stating
therein that the matter has been amicably settled and they
do not want to proceed further in the present case and he
has no objection if this Court quashes the entire criminal
proceeding.
7. Learned Additional Government advocate was
directed by this Court to obtain instruction on the Affidavit
filed by the husband of the informant. Pursuant to the
instruction dated 12.08.2025, the I.I.C., Olatpur P.S,
learned Additional Government Advocate contended that
the concerned I.I.C. conducted a local enquiry and found
that the complainant is dead since 21.01.2022 and the
cause of death due to COVID and she died at KIMS
hospital, Bhubaneswar. It has been stated in the instruction
that the husband of the informant has filed this Affidavit
before this Court with a request not to proceed further
against the Petitioner in the present case. Therefore, the
learned Additional Government Advocate contended that
there is no doubt with regard to the death of the husband of
the informant and that since the dispute has been amicably
settled and the parties are living peacefully and they are
belong to one family and the society is not affected in
general. Therefore, the criminal proceeding be quashed in
the larger interest of justice.
Page 3 of 7.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in the aforesaid
context referred to the latest judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Naushey Ali & Ors v. State
of U.P. and Anr decided in Criminal Appeal No.660 of
2025 vide judgment dated 11.02.2025. On perusal of the
said judgment, it appears that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
was examining an identical issue of quashing of criminal
proceeding which involves allegation for commission of
offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which
is not compoundable in nature. Initially the application for
quashing under section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the
High Court. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by virtue
of a detailed judgment and after taking note of several
rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, finally quashed the
proceeding and the order of the High Court refusing to
quash the proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C., dated
19.01.2023, was set aside.
9. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the
other hand objected to the quashing of the entire criminal
proceeding on the ground that the allegations made in the
F.I.R. are trivial in nature. He further submitted that the
alleged offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
is an offence against the society, therefore, the criminal
proceeding of such offence cannot be quashed. On such
ground, learned Additional Government Advocate
contended that the present application filed at the instance
of the informant is liable to be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the husband of the
Page 4 of 7.
informant on the other hand supported the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He further
submitted that during pendency of the present criminal
proceeding the original informant died due to COVID 19
pandemic. He further submitted that the injuries sustained
by the injured are simple in nature. Further, referring to the
affidavit filed by the husband of the informant, he submitted
that since the matter has been amicably resolved amongst
the family members, the continuance of the criminal
proceeding will be an abuse of process of law and there is
no chance that the Petitioner being convicted in the present
crime. On such ground, learned counsel for the husband of
the informant submitted that the criminal proceeding against
the Petitioner be quashed.
11. Having heard learned counsels for the respective
parties, on careful examination of the background facts, this
Court observes that initially F.I.R. was lodged by the
informant making allegation for commission of the offences
punishable under section 307 and other allied offenses of
Indian Penal Code. No-doubt, the offence under section
307 of the Indian Penal Code is heinous in nature and is a
crime against society. Moreover Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code is a non-compoundable offence. In the present
case, although the F.I.R. has been registered for
commission of offence under section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code, further taking into consideration the injury
report that was placed on record during hearing, it is
observed that three injuries sustained by the injured are all
Page 5 of 7.
simple in nature. Therefore, this Court is of the prima facie
view that no case under section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code is made out. Although there is a growing tendency to
register F.I.Rs by making serious allegations to attract
higher offence under the Indian Penal Code, however by
taking cognizance of the offence, the Courts are duty bound
to examine the fact and to take cognizance and frame
charge under the aforesaid section of the Indian Penal
Code. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, this
Court is of the considered view that the allegations made in
the F.I.R., at best, make out a case under sections 323, 294
of the Indian Penal Code and not under section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code.
12. Further taking into consideration the fact that the
dispute is confined to the family members and the society at
large is not affected and further taking note of the fact that
the family members have resolved their dispute and are
living peacefully and accordingly, an affidavit has been filed
to bring an end to the criminal proceeding. This Court is of
the view that not considering such prayer would be an
obstruction in delivering justice. Moreover, when the parties
have settled the dispute amicably, it would not be desirable
to allow them to go on trial in terms of the litigation before
the trial court which would be against the interest of justice.
13. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, by
applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Naushey Ali & Ors v. State of U.P.
and Anr, this Court is inclined to quash the entire
Page 6 of 7.
proceeding. Accordingly, the Criminal Proceeding in
G.R.Case No.1288 of 2020 corresponding to Olatpur P.S.
Case No.62 of 2020 pending before the learned J.M.F.C.-
III, Cuttack is hereby quashed.
14. Accordingly, CRLMC stands allowed.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
RKS
Signature Not Verified Page 7 of 7.
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH
Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 13-Aug-2025 16:42:57