Orissa High Court
Satura @ Satrughana Majhi And Others vs State Of Odisha And Another …. … on 8 March, 2025
Author: M.S. Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2300 of 2024
Satura @ Satrughana Majhi and others .... Petitioners
In person
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Tej Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr. Narasingh Baral, Advocate for O.P. No.2
Mrs. Jayanti Mansingh, Opposite Party No.2 (In person)
CORAM:
JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No. ORDER
03. 08.03.2025
This case is taken up in the 1st National Lok Adalat, 2025
through Hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner No.1-Satura @ Satrughana Majhi and Opposite
Party No.2 - Jayanti Mansingh (Informant in Ranpur P.S. Case
No.59(8) dated 09.03.2014) along with her advocate - Mr.
Narasingh Baral are present before this National Lok Adalat.
3. A memo signed by the petitioner No.1 and the opposite party
No.2 duly identified by learned Advocate Sri Narasingh Baral is
filed in this Lok-Adalat enclosing photocopies of the affidavit filed
in this CRLMC by opposite party No.2 and the mutual agreement
entered into between petitioner No.2-Chandra Sekhar Majhi and
opposite party No.2-Jayanti Mansingh. The documents are taken on
record. Photocopies of Aadhaar Card of both the petitioner No.1 and
opposite party No.2, being identified by Mr. Narasingh Baral,
Page 1 of 6
learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 are also kept on
record.
4. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the
petitioners for quashing the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.59
of 2014, arising out of Ranapur P.S. Case No.59(8) dated
09.03.2014
, which is registered for alleged commission of offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 379, 325, 323, 436, 452
and 506 read with Section 149 of I.P.C., stated to be pending in the
file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-
J.M.F.C., Ranapur.
5. On being asked, petitioner No.1-Satura @ Satrughana Majhi
and Opposite Party No.2-Informant – Jayanti Mansingh in presence
of Mr. Narasingh Baral, learned counsel appearing for opposite
party No.2 and Mr. Tej Kumar, learned Additional Standing
Counsel appearing for opposite party No.1-State, asserted that at the
intervention of well-wishers, the dispute between the present
petitioners and opposite party No.2-Jayanti Mansingh (complainant)
has already been amicably settled outside the Court with a view to
end the litigations and in this regard, a mutual agreement has also
entered into between the parties, photocopy of which has been filed
along with the aforesaid memo. An affidavit dated 09.01.2025
sworn to by the complainant-Jayanti Mansingh has also been filed
by opposite party No.2 indicating therein that she does not want to
proceed in the present case any further as she and the petitioners are
living peacefully in their village.
Page 2 of 6
6. It has been affirmed in paragraphs-4, 5 and 6 of the said
affidavit sworn to by opposite party No.2 as follows:-
“*** *** ***
4. That, as we are living peacefully in our village, I
don’t want to proceed in the present case vide G.R.
Case No.59 of 2014, pending before the Learned
Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D)-Cum- J.M.F.C,
Ranpur, Dist. Nayagarh, corresponding to Ranpur PS
Case No.59 (8) of dated 09.03.2014 for the offences
U/s. 147/148/341/379/235/232/436/452/506/149 of
IPC.
5. That, if the case continues, then this will warrant
and inimical condition in our village and the entire
peace will be extinguished which will lead to a
poisonous atmospheres in the entire village.
6. That, in the interest of justice public at large this
G.R. Case No.59 of 2014, pending before the Learned
Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D)-Cum- J.M.F.C,
Ranpur, Dist. Nayagarh, corresponding to Ranpur PS
Case No.59(8) of dated 09.03.2014 for the offences
U/s. 147/148/341/379/235/232/436/452/506/149 of
IPC may be quashed against the present Accused
persons/petitioners.”
7. The parties, residing as neighbours, have already amicably
settled their disputes outside the Court, the criminal prosecution in
G.R. Case No.59 of 2014 pending in the file of learned Addl. Civil
Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Ranpur need not be kept
alive in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Narinder Singh and others Vrs. State of Punjab and another,
reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1-State
does not oppose such position of law and submitted that opposite
party No.2 (complainant herself who is present in this Lok Adalat)
Page 3 of 6
in her affidavit has clearly confirmed that she does not want to
proceed with the case as she and the petitioners are living peacefully
in their village.
9. I have gone through the F.I.R., Charge-sheet and other papers
available on record. Charge-sheet has filed for the alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341,
379, 325, 323, 436, 452, 506 read with Section 149 of I.P.C.
Needless to mention that some of the aforesaid offences are not
compoundable.
10. In the case of Narinder Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in paragraph-33 held as follows:-
“33. We have gone through the FIR as well which was
recorded on the basis of statement of the
complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the
complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused
persons because of some previous dispute between the
parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in
detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on
record viz., “respectable persons have been trying for a
compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”.
This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there
have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid
purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In
this context when we find that the elders of the village,
including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the
parties have not only buried their hatchet but have
decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an
important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in
the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise
between parties, there is a minimal chance of the
witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution
case. Even though nature of injuries can still be
established by producing the doctor as witness who
conducted medical examination, it may become difficult
Page 4 of 6
to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of
conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would,
therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings.
We, taking all these factors into consideration
cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise
between the parties be accepted and the criminal
proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010
registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District
Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly.”
11. In the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vrs. State of Karnataka,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 38, it has been held as follows:-
“5. In light of the amicable settlement and the
complainant’s unequivocal consent, as evidenced by the
Interlocutory Application, this Court finds it appropriate to
allow the present M.A. While the offense under Section 326
IPC is non-compoundable under the provisions of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the exceptional
circumstances of this case, including the voluntary settlement
between the parties, warrant the exercise of this Court’s
inherent powers to give effect to the compromise.”
12. Reverting to the case in hand, parties having amicably settled
their disputes outside the Court with a view to restore their family
peace and harmonious relationship, the chance of conviction
appears to be remote. Hence, continuance of the criminal
proceeding in G.R. Case No.59 of 2014, arising out of Ranapur P.S.
Case No.59(8) dated 09.03.2014 against the petitioners would be a
seer abuse of the process of the Court. In the circumstances, the
compromise is accepted and the criminal prosecution in G.R. Case
No.59 of 2014, arising out of Ranapur P.S. Case No.59(8) dated
09.03.2014, pending in the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge
Page 5 of 6
(Junior Division)-cum-JMFC, Ranpur, District-Nayagarh against the
petitioners is hereby quashed.
13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of being allowed.
14. Copy of this Order be communicated to the Court concerned
forthwith.
(M.S. Raman, J.)
st
1 National Lok Adalat
Aswin/MRS/Suchitra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 12-Mar-2025 11:42:31 Page 6 of 6