Pitabash Danta vs ) State Of Odisha
2025 Latest Caselaw 3361 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pitabash Danta vs ) State Of Odisha on 12 August, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                    CRLMC No.117 of 2025

            Pitabash Danta                        .....                 Appellant
                                                            Represented By Adv. -
                                                            Jugala Kishore Panda


                                          -versus-

            1) State Of Odisha                 .....                 Respondents
            2) Tapan Kumar Parida                         Represented By Adv. -
                                                          Ranjan Dangri(husband Of
                                                          The Informant)

                                                          Mr.U.R.Jena, AGA


                                 CORAM:
                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                               MOHAPATRA
                                  ORDER

12.08.2025 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the CRLMC Application as well as the prayer made in the CRLMC Application.

3. By filing the present CRLMC application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R. in G.R.Case No.1288 of 2020 corresponding to Olatpur P.S.Case No.62 of 2020 pending

in the court of the learned J.M.F.C.-III, Cuttack on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between both sides.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that on the basis of an information lodged by one Nayanabala Parida on 25.06.2020, the present FIR was registered by the I.I.C. of Olatpur P.S., Cuttack. On perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the dispute arose amongst the family members on the occasion of Birth Day of grandchild of the informant. It has also been added that due to such discord the informant was assaulted by the present Petitioner. Thereafter, the informant has lodged this F.I.R. making allegations against the Petitioner. On the basis of such allegation, a case was registered for commission of offences under sections 294, 341, 323, 307, 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that most of the offences alleged against the Petitioner are compoundable in nature except the offense under section 307, 354 of the Indian Penal Code, which are non- compoundable in nature. He further submitted that so far the allegation under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, no case is made out under the said offence. Learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the injury report submitted that the injured had sustained three injuries, which are simple in nature. Copy of the injury report filed in Court is taken on record.

6. While this was the position, the case was pending

since 2020. In the meantime, the informant passed away. Thereafter, the family members including the husband of the informant decided to resolve the dispute amicably and live peacefully. Accordingly, a joint affidavit has been filed before this Court by the husband of the informant stating therein that the matter has been amicably settled and they do not want to proceed further in the present case and he has no objection if this Court quashes the entire criminal proceeding.

7. Learned Additional Government advocate was directed by this Court to obtain instruction on the Affidavit filed by the husband of the informant. Pursuant to the instruction dated 12.08.2025, the I.I.C., Olatpur P.S, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the concerned I.I.C. conducted a local enquiry and found that the complainant is dead since 21.01.2022 and the cause of death due to COVID and she died at KIMS hospital, Bhubaneswar. It has been stated in the instruction that the husband of the informant has filed this Affidavit before this Court with a request not to proceed further against the Petitioner in the present case. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Advocate contended that there is no doubt with regard to the death of the husband of the informant and that since the dispute has been amicably settled and the parties are living peacefully and they are belong to one family and the society is not affected in general. Therefore, the criminal proceeding be quashed in the larger interest of justice.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in the aforesaid context referred to the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naushey Ali & Ors v. State of U.P. and Anr decided in Criminal Appeal No.660 of 2025 vide judgment dated 11.02.2025. On perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining an identical issue of quashing of criminal proceeding which involves allegation for commission of offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which is not compoundable in nature. Initially the application for quashing under section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the High Court. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by virtue of a detailed judgment and after taking note of several rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, finally quashed the proceeding and the order of the High Court refusing to quash the proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C., dated 19.01.2023, was set aside.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand objected to the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding on the ground that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are trivial in nature. He further submitted that the alleged offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is an offence against the society, therefore, the criminal proceeding of such offence cannot be quashed. On such ground, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the present application filed at the instance of the informant is liable to be dismissed.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the husband of the

informant on the other hand supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He further submitted that during pendency of the present criminal proceeding the original informant died due to COVID 19 pandemic. He further submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. Further, referring to the affidavit filed by the husband of the informant, he submitted that since the matter has been amicably resolved amongst the family members, the continuance of the criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law and there is no chance that the Petitioner being convicted in the present crime. On such ground, learned counsel for the husband of the informant submitted that the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner be quashed.

11. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on careful examination of the background facts, this Court observes that initially F.I.R. was lodged by the informant making allegation for commission of the offences punishable under section 307 and other allied offenses of Indian Penal Code. No-doubt, the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is heinous in nature and is a crime against society. Moreover Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is a non-compoundable offence. In the present case, although the F.I.R. has been registered for commission of offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, further taking into consideration the injury report that was placed on record during hearing, it is observed that three injuries sustained by the injured are all

simple in nature. Therefore, this Court is of the prima facie view that no case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Although there is a growing tendency to register F.I.Rs by making serious allegations to attract higher offence under the Indian Penal Code, however by taking cognizance of the offence, the Courts are duty bound to examine the fact and to take cognizance and frame charge under the aforesaid section of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations made in the F.I.R., at best, make out a case under sections 323, 294 of the Indian Penal Code and not under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

12. Further taking into consideration the fact that the dispute is confined to the family members and the society at large is not affected and further taking note of the fact that the family members have resolved their dispute and are living peacefully and accordingly, an affidavit has been filed to bring an end to the criminal proceeding. This Court is of the view that not considering such prayer would be an obstruction in delivering justice. Moreover, when the parties have settled the dispute amicably, it would not be desirable to allow them to go on trial in terms of the litigation before the trial court which would be against the interest of justice.

13. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, by applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naushey Ali & Ors v. State of U.P. and Anr, this Court is inclined to quash the entire

proceeding. Accordingly, the Criminal Proceeding in G.R.Case No.1288 of 2020 corresponding to Olatpur P.S. Case No.62 of 2020 pending before the learned J.M.F.C.- III, Cuttack is hereby quashed.

14. Accordingly, CRLMC stands allowed.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge RKS

Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Aug-2025 16:42:57