Orissa High Court
Kalu Parida @ Kalia Parida vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 25 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1459 of 2024
Kalu Parida @ Kalia Parida .... Petitioner(s)
and others
Mr. M. K. Chand, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. U. R. Jena, AGA
Mr. D. K. Das, Advocate for O.P. No.2
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
25.11.2024
Order No.
04. 1. Heard.
2. At the instance of opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. dated
18.02.2024 in Tangi P.S. Case No.151 of 2024 for the offences
under Sections 341/294/323/379/34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections
3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be registered
against the petitioners.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 17.02.2024 at
about 09.00 A.M., while the informant/opposite party No.2 along
with his friend was unloading tin from a pick-up van, at that time,
taking into account the parking of the vehicle, the petitioner No.1
abused him and instructed him to remove the vehicle from that
place. When the informant objected, suddenly, all the petitioners
bounced on him and his friend and abused them in their caste and
assaulted them. Hence, the F.I.R.
4. The investigation in the present case is still going on. At
this stage, the parties have settled their dispute and the petitioners
have approached this Court for quashing of the entire criminal
prosecution initiated against them by the opposite party No.2.
5. The petitioners, the opposite party No.2 and the injured are
present in the Court and being represented and identified by their
respective counsels. They have also filed self-attested copies of
their Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on
record.
6. The opposite party No.2 has filed an affidavit dated
30.07.2024 inter alia stating as under:-
<2. That although due to some misunderstanding
followed by quarrel between myself and one of my
friend namely Trinath Behera on one side with the
petitioners on the other side case and counter case
has been filed against each other but now in flux of
time the dispute which has resulted the F.I.R. has
been Settled amicably because of intervention of
some of our well wishers for which at Present good
relationship is Prevailing amongst us for such reason
neither myself nor the injured is interested to
proceed further in this case against the Petitioners.=
7. The injured namely Trinath Behera in the present case has
also filed an affidavit dated 30.07.2024 inter alia stating as under:-
<That although due to some misunderstanding
followed by quarrel between myself and one of my
Friend namely Santunu Behera on one side with the
Petitioners on the other side case and counter case
has been filed against each other but now in flux of
time the dispute which has resulted the F.I.R. has
been Settled amicably because of intervention of
some of our well wishers for which at Present good
relationship is prevailing amongst us for such reason
neither myself nor the informant is interested to
proceed further in this case against the Petitioners.=
8. On the query from the Court, the opposite Party No.2 and
the injured have stated that on the intervention of the elders of the
family and well-wishers, they have settled their dispute with the
petitioners. They do not want to proceed with the matter against the
petitioners anymore. The partiers have also filed a joint affidavit
reiterating their stand.
9. Mr. Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate for
the State submits that since the parties have settled their dispute and
filed a joint compromise affidavit and the injured and the informant
have made a specific statement before this Court that they do not
want to proceed with the case against the petitioners so as to
maintain peace and tranquility in the locality, therefore, there is no
legal impediment in quashing the F.I.R.
10. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have settled
their dispute and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi & others vs.
State of Haryana & another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, I am of
the considered view that subjecting the petitioners to trial would be
a futile exercise. Therefore, the petition deserves merit.
11. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with
Tangi P.S. Case No.151 of 2024 corresponding to T.R. Case No.16
of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Khurda and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom
qua the petitioners are quashed, subject to each of the petitioners
paying cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) to the opposite
party No.2 and the injured.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Location: High Court of Orissa
