Orissa High Court
Akalu Dhal & Ors vs State Of Odisha And Another …. … on 12 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 858 of 2025
Akalu Dhal & Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Party(s)
Ms. S. Moharana, ASC
Mr. B. Pasayat, Advocate for O.P. No.2
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 12.03.2025 01. 1. Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. dated
30.04.2022 in Deogarh P.S. Case No.361 of 2022 came to be
registered against the petitioners for the alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 341/323/294/353/506/307/34 of
IPC read with Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (P.A.)
Act, pending in the court of learned Judge, Special Court, Deogarh.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 30.04.2022
at 5.40P.M., the Opp.party No.2 being an complainant, lodged a
written report before the Deogarh P.S, alleging therein that on the
same day, the informant along with his official staffs were going to
Page 1 of 6
Bhaliagudi for enquiry in regard to W.P(C) No.40971/2021. While
they continue theenquiry at 10.30 A.M to 12.00 Noon some
unknown persons call to him and asked him to meet MLA of the
area but he told him that after finishing of his work, he would meet
the MLA. After some time Deogarh MLA, the Petitioner No.4
along with the other Petitioners and ten others reached at the spot
and suddenly attacked him, abused in filthy language. It is alleged
that the Petitioner No.4 assaulted the Opp.party.2 by means of feast
blows and abused him by taking the name of his caste. Basing upon
such report, the I.I.C., Deogarh Police Station, registered the case as
Deogarh P.S. Case No.361 dtd.30.04.2022, U/s. 341, 323, 294, 353,
506, 307/34 of LP.C., read with Section 3(l)(r),3(l)(s), & 3(2)(va) of
SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Amendment Act,
2018) against the petitioners and started investigation.
It is also submitted that at the instance of petitioner no.4, a
counter case being F.I.R No. 360 of 2022 has also been registered
against opposite party no.2. After investigation of the said FIR, the
closure report has already been filed on 31.07.2022.
4. After investigation, charge sheet in the present case has
already been filed on 30.08.2022 for the alleged commission of
offence punishable under341/323/294/353/506/307/34 of IPC read
Page 2 of 6
with Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (P.A.)
Act. Cognizance of offences have already been taken and before the
charge is frame and the trial is commenced, the parties have entered
into a settlement. Opposite party no.2 is the then Block
Development Officer Tileibani and now working as B.D.O.,
Muniguda, whereas petitioner no.4 was the Member of Legislative
Assembly. The other petitioners are his supporters.
5. All the petitioners and opposite party no.2 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. The
parties have filed a joint affidavit dated 12.03.2025, inter alia,
stating as under:-
“2. That the opposite party no.2 in the aforesaid criminal
misc. case being the informant lodged a written complaint
before the IIC, Deogarh police station against the present
petitioners for commission of offences under Section
341/323/294/353/506/304/34 of IPC, read with Section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2018) in
connection with Deogarh P.S. Case No.361 dated
30.04.2022, corresponding to Spl. C.T. No.16/2022,
arising out of Spl. G.R. Case No.24/2022, in the file of the
learned Judge, Special Court, Deogarh.
Subsequently, the petitioner no.4 lodged an written
complaint before the IIC, Deogarh Police Station against
the opposite party no.2, which was registered as Deogarh
P.S. Case No.360 dated 30.04.2022 under Section
341/323/294/506 of IPC. After completion of thePage 3 of 6
investigation, final report vide FF No.553 dated
31.07.2022 was submitted by the investigating officer.
3. That during the pendency of the above noted G.R.
Case, the dispute between the opposite party no.2
(informant) and the petitioners/accused persons have
been amicably settled out of Court, with the intervention
of local gentries and well-wishers. Due to such settlement
and in order to maintain the future peace among the
parties, the opposite party no.2 (informant) expresses his
unwillingness to proceed further in the case.
4. That in view of such amicable settlement, the opposite
party no.2/informant does not want to proceed the
aforesaid criminal case further as against the present
petitioner. It is relevant to submit herewith that the
present case has been foisted by the opposite party no.2
due to misunderstanding.
5. That the opposite party no.2 (informant) has no
objection, if the criminal proceeding/FIR made against
the present petitioners may be quashed by this Hon’ble
Court in the above criminal Miscellaneous Application.
6. That it is also submitted here that in event of
continuance of the present proceeding there is every
chance/possibility of ill-feeling among the parties to
which neither the opposite party no.2 (informant) nor the
petitioners intending for.”
6. Opposite party no.2, who is the informant present in Court
and on the query from the Court he submits that now he is posted as
B.D.O. at Muniguda in the district of Rayagada. He had lodged the
FIR against the petitioners when he was working as BDO in
Tileibani. He submits that on the intervention of village gentries
and well-wishers, there was a settlement between him and the
petitioners and they have settled the dispute out of the Court. The
petitioners have tendered apology for their misconduct. On the basis
of the said apology, he agreed to give consent for quashing of the
Page 4 of 6
FIR and accordingly he has filed the joint affidavit along with the
petitioners. He further submits that he has already settled the
dispute with the petitioners and he does not want to proceed against
them anymore.
7. Ms. Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
the State submits although the allegation reveals that an elected
representative had attacked an officer, but since the parties have
settled their dispute, there is no legal impediment in quashing the
F.I.R.
8. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have settled
their dispute and opposite party no.2, who the B.D.O. has filed an
affidavit before this Court stating that he does not want to prosecute
the petitioners, subjecting the petitioners to rigors of the trial is
destined to be futile exercise. The case of the petitioners is 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
the F.I.R. dated 30.04.2022 in Deogarh P.S. Case No.361 of 2022
corresponding to Spl. C.T. No. 16/2022 arising out of Special G.R.
Page 5 of 6
Case No.24 of 2022 pending in the Court of the learned Judge,
Special Court, Deogarh and consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.
Regard being had to the nature of allegations and the status
of the petitioners, I am of the considered view that the petitioners
should pay cost of Rs.10,000,/- (Rupees ten thousand) each to the
opposite party no.2 and at the same time deposit the equal amount
of Rs.10,000/- each before the District Bar Association, Rayagada.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
CRLMC is 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: 13-Mar-2025 16:16:32
Page 6 of 6