Orissa High Court
Nirmalendu Mishra vs State Of Odisha & Another …. Opp. … on 10 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4336 of 2024
Nirmalendu Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. Tanmaya
Kumar Beura,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr.S.J.Mohanty,
ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 10.03.2025
02.
1.
Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the
F.I.R. in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No.214 of
2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1560 of 2019
came to be registered against the petitioner for the
alleged commission of offences punishable under
Sections 323/427/379/506 of the IPC, pending in the
Court of learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the
opposite party No.2 reported at Badambadi P.S.
alleging therein that, the petitioner called him over
Page 1 of 5
phone to the Car parking place of the High Court Bar
Association. He abruptly asked several questions
regarding the DV Execution Case No.42/17 pending in
the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack and
suddenly attacked the complainant by means of slaps
and blows as a result of which he sustained bleeding
injuries and he became senseless. By the help of some
advocate of the Orissa High Court, he came to the Bar
association. The F.I.R was registered.
4. After the investigation, the charge sheet has already
been filed in the present case. Subsequent thereto,
vide order dated 18.06.2020, the learned S.D.J.M.,
Sadar, Cuttack has taken cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 323/427/379/506 of the
IPC against the petitioner.
5. Before the trial commenced, the parties have
entered into settlement. On the basis of the settlement
terms, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding.
6. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 are
present in the Court today. They are being represented
by their respective counsel and being identified by
them. They have also filed the photocopies of their
respective Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity,
which are taken on record.
7. The parties have also filed an affidavit inter alia,
stating as under:
“1. That, the deponent No.1 is the informant
whereas the Deponent No.2 is the Accused Person in
Page 2 of 5
GR No.1560/2019 now pending in the Learned
S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack U/S. 323, 427, 379, 506
IPC.
2. That, due to dissension in between the
Deponents, the above Criminal Case is now pending
and in the meantime, the dispute in between the
Deponents has been settled in interference of well-
wishers of both the Deponents.
3. That, both the deponents are Advocates by
avocation and hence, the further lingering of the
above case may hamper the reputation of the
Deponents and hence, it may be postponed in the
interest of justice.
4. That, in view of the above settlement, the
Deponent No.1 does not want to proceed furthermore
against the Deponent No.2 in the abovementioned
Criminal Case and the Deponent No.2 also
undertake for not to file any proceeding against
Deponent No.1 in connection to the above Criminal
Case.
5. That, this affidavit is required to be produced
before the concerned Court quashing of the above
Criminal Case on the basis of the amicable
settlement between the parties.”
8. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 both are
the practicing Advocates. The opposite party No.2 is
present in the Court today. On the query from the
Court, he states that due to the misunderstanding and
sudden provocation, he has lodged the F.I.R. against
the petitioner. However, being a fellow brother
colleague at the Bar, he has settled the dispute and he
does not want to proceed against the petitioner any
more.
9. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel
appearing for the opposite party No.1-State submits
Page 3 of 5
that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are very minor
in nature. Since the parties have settled their dispute
and they have also filed the affidavit to that effect,
there is no legal impediment in quashing the F.I.R.
10. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have
settled their dispute and they have also filed the
affidavit to that regard, I am inclined to allow the
present petition. In the fact scenario of the present
case, subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of trial is
destined to be a futile exercise. The present case is
squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303;
B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana &
another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & another v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others,
reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition
deserves merit.
11. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions
made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Lalbag
P.S. Case No.214 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.1560 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned
S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack and the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are
quashed.
Page 4 of 5
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 10-Mar-2025 19:59:05
Page 5 of 5