Orissa High Court
Nimin Charan Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Another on 1 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.852 of 2022
Nimin Charan Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Panda, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 01.11.2022
No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for
quashing of the criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case
No.1543 of 2020 corresponding to Cantonment P.S. Case No.151 of
2020 registered under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 409 IPC
pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack on the ground of
compromise.
3. The Court perused a copy of the FIR as at Annexure-1. In
fact, after a report was lodged by opposite party No.2, Cantonment
P.S. Case No.151 of 2020 was registered under the alleged offences.
4. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that after
the closure of investigation, local P.S. submitted the chargesheet
against the petitioner in the year 2022.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the
relevant point of time, the petitioner was employee of M/s.
Muthoot Finance and in such capacity, he had received some gold
ornaments on mortgage from opposite party No.2 but subsequently
when the latter claimed for its redemption on clearance of dues,
former stated to have already released it on the strength of an
affidavit.
6. It submitted that in the meantime the parties have settled
the differences and opposite party No.2 received an amount from
the petitioner towards settlement. Learned counsel for the opposite
party No.2 admits the fact of compromise and refers to the affidavit
which is at Flag-B for the Court's perusal.
7. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State also submits
that there is a compromise as per the instructions received from the
concerned PS.
8. The informant, namely, opposite party No.2 is present in
Court and she admits of having settled the matter with the
petitioner. The petitioner is also physically present in Court today.
The Court perused the affidavit sworn by opposite party No.2. In
support of identity proof in respect of the informant opposite party
No.2, a copy of Aadhar card is produced before the Court. A copy
of the Aadhar card is also annexed to the affidavit and the same is
perused. As per the affidavit, opposite party No.2 claimed to have
compromised the matter after having received some amount from
the petitioner.
9. Considering the above facts and peculiar nature of the
dispute between the parties, the Court is of the view that as there
has been a settlement which is evident from the affidavit sworn by
opposite party No.2, no worthy purpose would be served to
continue with the criminal proceeding. In other words, the Court is
of the opinion that in view of the settlement reached at between
the petitioner and opposite party No.2, proceeding arising out of
Cantonment P.S. Case No.151 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.1543 of 2020 pending before the court below should be
quashed. The settled position of law as laid down by the Supreme
Court in B.S. Joshi and others Vrs. State of Haryana and another
reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 and followed by many other
judgments wherein it has been held that in peculiar circumstances,
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised to quash the
criminal proceeding, the Court is of the conclusion that it is a fit case
where such power so as to bring the litigation between the parties
to an end.
10. Accordingly, it is ordered.
11. In the result, CRLMCs stands allowed. Consequently, the
criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.1543 of 2020 corresponding to
Cantonment P.S. Case No.151 of 2020 pending in the file of learned
S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack is hereby quashed.
12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Tudu
