Bijay Ku. Singh vs State Of Odisha And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3292 Ori

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

              CRLMC NO.2145 of 2018

 (In the matter of application under Section 482 of the
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973).

 Bijay Ku. Singh                      ...            Petitioner
                           -versus-

 State of Odisha and Another ...            Opposite Parties

 For Petitioner            : Mr. S.K. Tripathy, Advocate


 For Opposite              : Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA
 Parties                     Mr. B.S. Dasparida,
                             Advocate for Informant

      CORAM:
                 JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

           DATE OF HEARING :31.03.2023
           DATE OF JUDGMENT :12.04.2023

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The prayer made in the CRLMC is to quash the

criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner

and the order taking cognizance passed on

17.02.2018 by the learned S.D.J.M., Baripada in G.R.

Case No.965 of 2017 on the ground of compromise.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for the

petitioner, who by filing the certified copy of police

papers in G.R. case No.965 of 2017 of the Court of

learned S.D.J.M., Baripada, submits to quash the

criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioner as

well as the cognizance order by taking into

consideration the compromise made by Petitioner and

the Informant, to which Mr. B.S. Dasparida, learned

counsel appearing for the Informant does not dispute

and he inter-alia submits that the Informant has filed

an affidavit stating therein her satisfaction with

respect to compromise entered into by her with the

Petitioner.

3. Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned AGA, submits that

although the offence U/Ss.323/417/506 of IPC are

compoundable offences, but the offence U/S.493 of

IPC is not compoundable in nature and in the

circumstance, since Section 493 of IPC is an offence

of moral turpitude, the criminal proceeding with

aforesaid offence should not be quashed as an abuse

of process of the Court. Learned AGA, accordingly,

prays to dismiss the CRLMC.

4. On coming back to the factual aspect, it is not

disputed that the informant has lodged an FIR against

the petitioner for commission of offences U/Ss.498-

A/494/312/313/323/294/506/379/34 of IPC, but

after investigation in the matter, the Investigating

Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the

petitioner for commission of offence punishable

U/Ss.493/417/323/506 of IPC under which

cognizance has been taken by the learned S.D.J.M.,

Baripada vide order dated 17.02.2018 in G.R. Case

No.965 of 2017, out of these offences, offence

U/Ss.417/323/506 of IPC are compoundable in

nature, whereas the offence U/S.493 of IPC is neither

cognizable nor compoundable. What cannot,

however, be kept aside in this case is that the

informant being duly identified by her counsel, had

appeared before this Court and submitted that she

has filed an affidavit on 08.03.2019 indicating therein

about amicable settlement of the matter between her

and the petitioner. She also categorically stated that

she has got no objection, if the proceeding, which is

initiated by her against the petitioner is dropped as

she wants to start a new life.

5. Law is well settled that power to quash a criminal

proceeding in exercise of inherent jurisdiction is

distinct and different from the power of a criminal

Court compounding the offence U/S.320 of the

Cr.P.C. and cases which can be quashed on the

ground of settlement of dispute depend on facts and

circumstance of individual case, but heinous and

serious offences of mental depravity or under special

statues like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences

committed by public servant while working in their

capacity as a public servant, cannot be quashed even

though the victim or victim's family member and

offender have settled the dispute amicably. It is

undisputed that inherent power has wide plentitude

with no statutory limitation, but it has to be exercised

in accordance with the law viz. to secure the ends of

justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court.

What cases can be quashed on compromise between

the parties, cannot be precisely prescribed or no

inflexible guidelines can be laid down, but the

criminal proceeding in suitable cases can be quashed,

if in view of compromise between the offender and

the victim, there would be remote and bleak

possibility of conviction of the offender and, thereby,

the continuation of criminal case would be a futile

exercise powers of the Court, which would in any way

prevent the wastage of time of the Court. It is,

however, clarified that offences of mental depravity

by no stretch of imagination can be quashed on the

basis of compromise between the parties.

6. In this case, the narration of facts and allegation

on record, however, depict a sensitive picture of love,

marriage, co-habitation, cheating and separation of a

man and woman, no matter the Investigating

Agency, of course, has considered the marriage to be

invalid marriage. Be that as it may, the petitioner and

the informant are sufficiently educated to realize the

consequence of the allegations, but the informant by

way of an affidavit has stated before this Court about

settlement of dispute between them and she

expresses her intention not to proceed against the

petitioner. For a moment, if the petitioner is sent up

for trial, what would be the inevitable consequence in

a case of this nature, when the victim does not

support the prosecution case, is well known to

everyone, which in anyway would render the trial

futile resulting in remote or bleak possibility of

conviction. In this case, leaving the victim, there are

four other witnesses including the I.O. Of whom,

none speaks against the petitioner for the allegation

with respect to offence U/S.493 of IPC. In such

situation, if the evidence of victim is eschewed, there

would be very remote or even no possibility of the

case ending in conviction of the petitioner and in this

case, the stand of the informant itself is very clear

that she has settled the matter with the petitioner

and wants the case against the petitioner be dropped,

which might be due to informant possibly preferring

to start a new life independently and afresh. It is also

not in dispute that the victim is a grown up lady and

she very much understands the consequence of the

criminal case of this nature in her private life, but in

that event, the quashing of criminal proceeding

against the petitioner is not on merit, but due to

compromise with the informant.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and taking into

consideration the effect of compromise for offences

U/Ss.493/417/323/506 of IPC, out of which, except

offence U/S.493 of IPC, rest are compoundable in

nature and keeping in view the compromise by the

informant and the petitioner in this case, there

appears hardly remote or bleak possibility of

conviction of the petitioner and, thereby, the

continuation of criminal case against the petitioner is

considered to be wastage of time of the Court, which

persuades this Court to quash the criminal proceeding

initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, the order

passed on 17.02.2018 by learned S.D.J.M., Baripada

in G.R. Case No.965 of 2017 and consequently, the

criminal proceeding arising thereon against the

petitioner are hereby quashed.

8. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed to the

extend indicated above, but in circumstance, there is

no order as to costs.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 12th of April, 2023/Subhasmita