Orissa High Court
) Manish Gupta vs ) State Of Odisha on 16 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.641 of 2025
1) Manish Gupta ..... Appellants
2) Sunil Verma Represented By Adv. -
3) Sunil Verma Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal
Lalit Kumar Maharana
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Respondents
2) Amulya Sahoo Represented By Adv. -
3) Atanu Ray Rakesh Behera
Mr.C.M.Singh, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
16.09.2025 Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr.D.P.Dhal, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the informant and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present CRLMC application under section 528 of BNSS 2023, the Petitioners seek to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the entire Page 1 of 8. criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R.No.368 of Choudwar P.S. registered on 14.07.2024 corresponding to C.T.Case No.163 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, SC & ST (POA) Act, Cuttack for alleged commission of offences under sections 294, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989.
4. Mr.Dhal, learned senior counsel at the outset contended that due to misunderstanding between the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2-Complainant, the above-noted F.I.R. was registered for commission of offence as has been indicated hereinabove. It is further contended the offences under the Indian Penal Code are magistrate triable offences and so far as the offences under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are concerned, the same is an exaggeration of facts. He further contended that in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled between the informant and the Petitioners and a joint compromise has been filed by both parties which was sworn before the Oath Commissioner on 13.08.2025. He further contended that in the meantime the dispute, which was basically due to a misunderstanding, has been amicably resolved and that the informant-Opposite Party No.2 does not want to proceed further against the Petitioners. Learned senior counsel further contended that Page 2 of 8. the criminal case pending against the Petitioners be quashed.
5. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioners in course of his argument referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635 in support of his contention. Further, referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners contended that while dealing with a case for quashing of the proceeding on the basis of compromise in a case of non- compoundable offences, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines. Further, specifically referring to Paragraph-17 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dealing with the Offence under the S.C. & S.(P.O.) Act, has categorically observed that where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. It has also been held that where a prayer is made for quashing of criminal proceeding on the basis of a compromise/settlement between the parties, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, then the mere fact that the offence is covered under a "special statute" would not in itself refrain this Court or High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Page 3 of 8. Cr.P.C.
6. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), learned senior counsel for the Petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the F.I.R. at Annexure-1. Further, he contended that the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the direction of the Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in I.C.C.Case No.23 of 2024 which was initiated at the instance of Opposite Party No.2. On perusal of the said complaint, it appears that the complainant was working as daily labour in ESR Company situated at Choudwar, Cuttack. It has also been stated that the Petitioners belong to "Kaibarta" community which is notified as S.T. in the State of Odisha. The accused persons are the Officers of the Company. Since the behaviour of the accused persons was found to be rough against the workmen of the company, including Opposite Party No.2, and they were using obscene words against such workmen, the Complainant lodged the complaint. On further perusal of the complaint, it appears that although specific allegations have been made, the same appears to be private in nature since the Petitioners and the complainant-Opposite Party No.2 were present inside the premises of the factory of a private company. In any event, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the F.I.R. was lodged due to misunderstanding between the Petitioners and the complainant. However, such dispute has been settled amicably and the complainant-Opposite Page 4 of 8. Party No.2 does not want to proceed with the present criminal proceeding and the aforesaid dispute can be set at rest by quashing the entire criminal proceeding.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant-Opposite Party No.2 on the other hand supported the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioners. He further contended that due to a misunderstanding between the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2 with regard to service condition, the present complaint has been lodged by the complainant-Opposite Party No.2. Since a settlement is arrived at between the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2, the complainant does not want to proceed further against the Petitioners. He further submitted that in the event the proceeding is allowed to continue, especially when a settlement between the parties has been arrived at, further continuance of the same will create a negative atmosphere in the factory premises. Since the dispute has been amicably resolved taking into consideration the fact that the alleged offenses under Indian Penal Code are trivial and compoundable in nature and the fact that the incident giving rise to the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 took place between the Petitioners and the complainant inside the factory premises, which is away from the public view, the learned counsel for the complainant- Opposite Party No.2 submitted that he will have no objection in the event the criminal proceeding is quashed. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Page 5 of 8. Party No.2 submitted that the pending criminal proceeding be quashed in the larger interest of justice.
8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that it appears from the joint affidavit filed by the parties that the matter has been amicably resolved. He also submitted that the offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are serious in nature. Furthermore, since the opposite Party No.2 does not want to proceed further, he will have no objection if this Court passed any appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the present case touching upon the criminal proceeding against the Petitioners, which would eventually safeguard the interest of justice.
9. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on careful examination of the background facts of the present case as well as the complaint petition, further taking note of the joint affidavit filed by both the parties, which was sworn before the Oath Commissioner of this Court, further taking into consideration the submissions of the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 that the informant does not want to proceed further in the present case, this Court is required to consider as to whether the offences alleged are crime against the society at large. On scrutiny of the allegations made in the complaint in its entirety, it is observed that the same gives a picture that there was some misunderstanding between the management of the company and the workers. As a result Page 6 of 8. of which an altercation took place between the parties. However, in the meantime the dispute has been resolved amicably and a cordial atmosphere prevails inside the factory premises. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.2 does not want to proceed further in the present criminal case. Moreover, keeping in view the fact that there exists no personal rivalry between the parties and the possibility of false implication by exaggerating the facts cannot be ruled out and that there existed a dispute between the Management and workmen of the Company, it would not be safe to allow the case to go on trial.
10. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served if the criminal proceeding is allowed to continue, rather it will create disturbance in the factory premises. Considering the fact that possibility of conviction in the present case is very bleak and the complainant does not support the case of the prosecution, furtherance of the criminal proceeding will result in wastage of valuable time of the Court. Additionally, since the management and workmen dispute has been set at rest by arriving at a compromise, this Court is of the view that the present case falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhanjanlal's case. As such, this Court deems it proper to exercise its inherent power in the present case to bring an end to the criminal proceeding. Accordingly, F.I.R.No.368 lodged in Choudwar P.S. on 14.07.2024 corresponding to C.T.Case No.163 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned Presiding Officer, Page 7 of 8. Special Court, SC & ST (POA) Act, Cuttack is hereby quashed.
11. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge RKS Signature Not Verified Page 8 of 8. Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Sep-2025 17:35:18