Orissa High Court
Padma Charan Khatua & vs State Of Odisha & Another …. Opp. … on 15 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4848 of 2024
Padma Charan Khatua & .... Petitioners
another Mr. Amit
Prasad Bose,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S.N.Biswal,
ASC and Mr.
D.K.Sethy,
Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 15.01.2025
02.
1.
Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the
F.I.R. in connection with Marshaghai P.S. Case No.66
of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.575 of 2024
came to be registered against the petitioners for the
alleged commission of offences punishable under
Page 1 of 4
Sections 341/323/294/506/379/34 of the IPC,
pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, the
complainant lodged a written report at the Marshaghai
P.S. alleging that, on 15.03.2024, due to the previous
enmity, the accused persons abused her and her
family members in obscene languages. On 16.03.2024
morning, the accused persons assaulted and
threatened her with dire consequences and took away
their gold chain etc. Hence, the F.I.R.
4. The investigation in the present case is completed
and the charge sheet has already been filed on
29.04.2024 for the alleged commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 341/323/294/506/34 of
the IPC.
5. When the matter stood thus, before commencement
of the trial, the parties have settled their dispute. The
parties have filed the joint affidavit dated 07.01.2025,
inter alia, stating as under:
“1. That the parties have compromised their dispute
and the opp. party No.2 has decided not to proceed
with the case in connection with Marsaghai P.S.
Case No.66 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.575 of 2024 taking cognizance by the court
S.D.J.M., Kendrapara against the present petitioners
only.
2.That the petitioners No.1 and 2 come to the opp.
party No-2 to settle their dispute and the opp. party
No.2 Smt. Laxmi Khatua, who is the informant in the
aforesaid case and also does not want to proceed
this case against the present petitioners.
3. That the investigating officer had submitted the
final form against the accused persons for
Page 2 of 4
commission of offence U/S. 341, 323, 294, 506, 34
of I.P.C. as dtd 29.4.2024.
4. That the petitioners have filed this CRLMC for
quashing of entire proceeding against the present
petitioners to the informant for amicable settlement
of the dispute the opp. party No.2 Namely Smt.
Laxmi Khatua agree for the same also signed the
joint affidavit.”
6. The petitioners and the opposite party No.2 are
present in the Court today. They are being represented
by their respective 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.
7. On the query from the Court, the informant-
opposite party No.2 has reiterated her stand and
stated that the F.I.R. was registered on the sudden
provocation and the dispute being amongst the family
members, they settled the misunderstanding on the
intervention of the elders. They have settled their
dispute to maintain the peace and tranquility in the
family.
8. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel
appearing for the opposite party No.1-State submits
that the dispute has arisen in the family leading to
registration of the F.I.R. and the parties have settled
their dispute and they have also filed the joint affidavit
in that regard. Therefore, there is no legal impediment
in quashing the F.I.R.
9. Regard being had to the submissions made above,
Page 3 of 4
and the fact that the parties have settled their dispute,
I am inclined to allow the present petition. In the fact
scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioners
to the rigors of trial at this stage would 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 MadhavraoJi Wajirao Scindia &
another v. Sambhajirao ChandrojiraoAngre and
others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the
petition deserves merit.
10. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions
made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with
Marshaghai P.S. Case No.66 of 2024 corresponding to
G.R. Case No.575 of 2024 pending in the Court of
learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara and the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are
quashed.
11. 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: 16-Jan-2025 11:13:04
Page 4 of 4
[ad_1]
Source link