Orissa High Court
Pradeep Kumar Palatasingh vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 12 September, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 3864 of 2022
Pradeep Kumar Palatasingh .... Petitioners
@ Pradepta Paltasingh &
others
Mr. S. Dwibedi, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opp. Parties
Mrs. S. Mohanty , Addl. P.P.
for O.P. No.1
Mr. S.R. Das, Advocate
for O.P. Nos.2 & 3
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 12.09.2025 07. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to quash the entire proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.96 of 2004 arising out of Ranpur P.S. Case No.99 of 2004 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur.
3. The background facts of the case, in brief, are that the Petitioners are facing prosecution for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 324, 307, 506, and 149 of the IPC. The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of a written report lodged on 26.05.2001 by Opposite Party No.2 before the IIC, Ranpur P.S., alleging that while the flooring work of Lord Shiva Temple was in progress and some persons were present there, the Petitioners along with about eighteen others arrived at the spot armed with weapons and hurled abuses in filthy language. It was further alleged that accused Prahallad and his son Pradeep assaulted the informant with a bamboo stick causing injury to his right hand; accused Benudhar Palei assaulted Dhaneswar Pradhan with a Farsa causing a head injury; accused Prahallad Paltasingh and Basant Kumar Paikray assaulted Kedarswar Baliarsingh; accused Brukodar Palei assaulted Gadadhar Paltasingh; accused Trinath Pradhan assaulted with a stick; and accused Pradeep Kumar Paltasingh assaulted Gadadhar Paltasingh with an iron rod, as a result of which all the injured persons required medical treatment. On the basis of the said report, Ranpur P.S. Case No.99 of 2004 was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Petitioners for the aforesaid offences, whereupon the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur took cognizance.
4. Mr. S. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and a joint affidavit evidencing such compromise has been filed before this Court. It is further urged that in view of the compromise, there remains no Page 2 of 7 justification to allow the criminal proceeding to continue and the same deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. Learned counsel also submits that the injured persons, apart from the informant, have affirmed affidavits supporting the compromise, thereby indicating that they are no longer interested in prosecuting the matter.
5. Ms. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State, while not disputing the factum of compromise, submits that the offences alleged against the Petitioners include serious charges under Sections 307 IPC and allied provisions, which are not ordinarily compoundable. It is contended that the gravity of the offences and their impact on society at large must also be kept in view while considering the prayer for quashing. Learned counsel, however, leaves it to the discretion of the Court to assess the compromise in the light of the nature of injuries and the overall circumstances of the case.
6. With regard to the quashing of criminal proceedings in a serious charge such as Sections 307 IPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh, reported in AIR 2019 SC 312 "3.1 ... Be that as it may, the fact remains that the accused was facing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC and that the offences under these Page 3 of 7 sections are not noncompoundable offences and, looking to the serious allegations against the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC solely on the ground that the original Complainant and the accused have settled the dispute. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Gulab Das and Ors. V. State of M.P. (2011) 12 SCALE 625 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, this Court has specifically observed and held that, despite any settlement between the Complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other, the criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be quashed, as the offence under Section 307 is a noncompoundable offence. Under the circumstance, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the original Accused for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Further, in Shoyeb Raja vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2024 INSC 731, it is held as under -
13. It is well recognized that intention may not always be proved by hard evidence and instead may be required to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. If the doctor who conducted the examination posits the possibility of throttling, then under what circumstances, without rigorous cross-examination, could it be concluded that the injuries sustained were simple? That apart, even if the injuries were taken as simple, the extent of the injuries, as observed supra in Hari Mohan Page 4 of 7 Mondal, are not relevant, if the intent is present. We are not in agreement with the learned Courts below that intent was absent, as the Doctor's report itself records throttling to be reasonably suspected.
14. The third criterion as in Kashirao (supra) could also arguably be met. Whether or not it is met, is a matter of determination at trial. The question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of Section 307, IPC is a question of fact and not one of law.
15.....In recognition of these self-imposed, long- standing, and justified limitations, interference is to be made, more so, when a Court, in arriving at its findings has acted perversely or otherwise improperly. [See: State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer]1. This has been the consistently adopted position till date. [See: Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra]2
16. In view of the above discussion, given that the minor nature of injuries is not sufficient reason to not frame a charge under Section 307 IPC, as per the law laid down by this Court, the judgment impugned, passed in Criminal Revision No. 3125 of 2021 dated 23rd November, 2023, is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The concerned Trial Court is directed to have the Respondents stand trial for all the offences for which charges have been framed, as also Section 307. The trial shall proceed on its own merits, as per law, uninfluenced by the observations hereinabove which were for the limited purpose of testing the propriety of the impugned order. The same shall be expedited."
1AIR 1958 SC 61 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 883 Page 5 of 7
7. Perusal of the complaint and the case record reveals that a prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners, including the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is noted that in the meantime two of the injured persons have expired. The records further disclose that there was no compromise between the parties until after submission of the charge sheet. On the face of the allegations in the complaint, the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the injury reports collected during investigation, the contention of the Petitioners that the injuries were simple in nature cannot dilute the alleged misconduct. It is well settled that in an offence under Section 307 IPC, the determinative factor is not merely the nature of the injury sustained but the intention with which the act was committed. In the present case, the injuries are described as incised wounds inflicted on vital parts of the body, which prima facie indicate seriousness. The gravity of such allegations can only be assessed upon a full-fledged appreciation of evidence during trial. Therefore, the subsequent compromise entered into by the parties after submission of the charge sheet, by itself, cannot absolve the Petitioners from facing trial, nor can it obviate the necessity of subjecting the material witnesses, who now claim compromise, to the test of oath in court.
Page 6 of 78. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the Petitioners for quashing of the criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the Petitioners, along with the Opposite Parties, are directed to appear before the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur on the date to be fixed by the said court for further hearing in connection with G.R. Case No.96 of 2004 arising out of Ranpur P.S. Case No.99 of 2004.
9. The CRLMC is hence disposed of.
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 17-Sep-2025 15:37:04 Page 7 of 7