Orissa High Court
Manjulata Padhi And Another vs State Of Odisha And Another …. … on 17 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 1669 of 2024
Manjulata Padhi and another .... Petitioner
Mr. J. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, ASC
Mr. P.K. Samal, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 17.01.2025
06. 1. At the instance of opposite party no.2, F.I.R. No.
437 of 2021 came to be registered against the
petitioners.
2. The petitioners by invoking inherent jurisdiction
of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are seeking
quashing of the F.I.R. in connection with Bhadrak Town
P.S. Case No.437 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case
No.2934 of 2021 pending in the court of learned SDJM,
Bhadrak for the alleged commission of the offences
Page 1 of 5
punishable under Sections 341/323/427/506/34 of the
IPC.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on
20.11.2021 the complainant Laxmidhar Padhi filed
written report before the LLC., Bhadrak Town police
station to the effect that on 20.11.2021 at about 10 A.M.
while he was residing at Tarini Continental Hotel in
Room No. 25 his wife and son arrived in that room,
damaged the valuable documents, assaulted him by fist
blows and attempted to kill him. In the meantime his
younger brother Harekrushna Padhi tried to rescue him
but the accused persons also assaulted him and
threatened with dire consequences. It is alleged that the
accused persons are continuing torturing him since last
20 years . It’s further alleged that on 19.11.2021 he
was confined inside a room, the neighbors rescued him.
Hence, the F.I.R.
4. Opposite party no.2 is the husband of petitioner
no.1 and father of petitioner no.2. Both the petitioners
and opposite party no.2 are present in Court and are
being represented by their 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.
Page 2 of 5
5. After the investigation, charge sheet has already
been filed in the present case on 30.12.2021 for the
alleged commission offences punishable under Sections
341/323/427/506/34 of the IPC. Before commencement
of trial, the parties have settled their dispute. The
petitioners and opposite party no.2 belong to the same
family. Hence they have settled the dispute and filed
affidavit before this Court. Opposite party no.2 has filed
affidavit dated 17.01.2025 inter alia stating as under:-
“2. That, due to some misconception of
facts and misunderstanding, I had filed this
case against the present petitioners which
was registered as Bhadrak Town P.S. Case
No.437 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.2934 of 2021, lying in the file of learned
SDJM, Bhadrak.
3. That, in the meantime the dispute
between the parties had already been
amicably settled due to intervention of well-
wishers and relative which had occurred
due to family disturbance and differences of
opinion between us. Further the petitioner
no.1 is my wife and petitioner no.2 is my
son and in view of such amicable settlement
we are living happily and peace within the
family has been restored. Accordingly, I do
not want to proceed further in the case and
seek to withdraw the case.”
6. Similarly, the petitioners have also filed affidavit
dated 17.01.2025 inter alia stating as under:-
“2. That, due to some misconception of
facts and some disturbance between thePage 3 of 5
informant and petitioners, the informant
(opposite party no.2) has filed the present
case against me and my son (petitioner no.2)
which was registered as Bhadrak Town P.S.
Case No.437 of 2021 corresponding to G.R.
Case No.2934 of 2021, lying in the file of
learned SDJM, Bhadrak.
3. That, in the meantime the dispute
between the parties have already been
amicably settled due to intervention of well-
wishers and relatives and the opposite party
no.2 who is the father of the petitioner no.2
and husband of petitioner no.1 do not want
to proceed with the case and ready to
withdraw the case as peace is restored
among the family members.
That in view of the amicable settlement and
compromise between both the parties we do
not want to proceed further with the case
and peace has been restored between both
the parties and there is cordial atmosphere
prevailed in the family.”
7. Opposite party no.2 is present in the Court and
on quarry he states that the matter has been settled
between them and peace has been restored between the
parties and there is cordial atmosphere prevailing in the
family after the settlement. Hence, he does not want to
proceed against the petitioners.
8. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing
Counsel submits that since the parties have settled their
dispute and appeared before this Court and conjointly
prayed for quashment of the FIR and the criminal
Page 4 of 5
proceeding, there is no legal impediment for quashing of
the entire criminal proceeding,
9. Regard being had to the submissions made by
the parties and the fact that the parties have settled
their dispute amicably as the allegations are minor in
nature and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303
and B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and
another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, I am of the
considered view that subjecting the petitioners to the
rigors of the trial would be a futile exercise. Therefore,
the petition deserves merit.
10. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in
connection with Bhadrak Town P.S. Case No.437 of
2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2934 of 2021
pending in the court of learned SDJM, Bhadrak is
quashed.
11. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Ashok
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB
MOHAPATRA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 20-Jan-2025 18:08:17 Page 5 of 5
[ad_1]
Source link