Orissa High Court
Balaram Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opp. ... on 8 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2483 of 2024
Balaram Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. Samarendra
Bahadur,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr.Bibekananda
Nayak, AGA and
Mr.Subash
Chandra Sahoo,
Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 08.04.2025
03.
1.
Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the
F.I.R. in connection with Niali P.S. Case No.97 (17) of
2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No.591 of 2007 came
to be registered against the petitioner for the alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections
448/294/323/325/379/506/34 of the IPC, pending in
the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Niali.
3. The opposite party No.2 reported at P.S. alleging
therein that, on 17.06.2007, some children of her
village entered into her house and plucked "Jamukoli".
Seeing this, the informant scolded the children, as a
result of which they went away from the spot. The
informant further alleged that, at about 3.00 P.M., six
persons of her village came to her house and
threatened and assaulted her. It is also alleged that,
they also took way her gold ornaments. Hence, the
F.I.R.
4. Although the F.I.R. has been registered against six
accused persons, however, after the investigation, the
charge sheet in the present case has been filed against
the petitioner alone on 26.10.2007. The learned
J.M.F.C., Niali, Cuttack, vide its order dated
02.04.2008, has taken the cognizance of the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 448/294/323/324
of the IPC.
5. Before the charge is framed and the trial
commenced, the parties have entered into settlement.
On the basis of the settlement terms, the petitioner is
seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding.
6. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 are
present in the Court today. They are being represented
by their respective counsel and being identified by
them. They have also filed the photocopies of their
respective Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity,
which are taken on record.
7. The opposite party No.2 has filed an affidavit
before this Court, inter alia, stating as under:
"2. That I have lodged the FIR vide Niali P.S. Case
No.97 of 2007 against the petitioner and others
corresponding to G.R. Case No.591 of 2007 pending
in the Court of the J.M.F.C., Niali.
3. That I and the petitioner are residents of same
village and on account of a trivial quarrel, I have
lodged the FIR against the petitioner and others.
Subsequently the dispute between us was amicably
settled.
4. That since our dispute has already resolved and
now we are having cordial relationships, I do not to
proceed with the police case vide Niali P.S. Case
No.97 of 2007.
5. That under the aforesaid facts and circumstances I
have no objection if the G.R. Case No.591 of 2007
arising out of Niali P.S. Case No.97 of 2007 pending
in the Court of the J.M.F.C., Niali is quashed."
8. The opposite party No.2 is present in the Court
today. On the query from the Court, she submits that
she has already arrived at a settlement with the
petitioner and she does not want to prosecute the
petitioner anymore. The settlement has been taken
place between the parties on the intervention of the
well-wishers and the village gentries.
9. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1-State
submits that the allegations are minor in nature and
the parties have settled their dispute. They have also
filed an affidavit before this Court in that regard.
Therefore, there is no legal impediment in quashing
the present F.I.R.
10. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have
settled their dispute and they have also filed the
affidavit to that regard, I am inclined to allow the
present petition. In the fact scenario of the present
case, subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of trial is
destined to be a futile exercise. The present case is
squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303;
B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana &
another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & another v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others,
reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition
deserves merit.
11. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions
made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Niali
P.S. Case No.97 (17) of 2007 corresponding to G.R.
Case No.591 of 2007 pending in the Court of learned
J.M.F.C., Niali, Cuttack and the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are
quashed.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
Digitally Signed Judge
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 08-Apr-2025 19:54:00
