[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bimbadhar Sethy vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 9 December, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.575 of 2025
Bimbadhar Sethy .... Petitioner
Mr. Saktidhara Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K.Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
03.12.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2000 of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, whereby, the
order of conviction and sentence directed by the learned SDJM,
Bhadrak in G.R.Case No. 927 of 2019 has been confirmed.
3. In course of hearing Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that there has been a compromise between
the parties, hence, a joint affidavit is filed not by the informant
but the injured. The further submission is that the informant has
expired in the meantime, hence, a settlement has been reached
at between the petitioner and the injured victims examined as
P.Ws. 5 & 6 during trial.
4. A joint affidavit is at flag-D and the same is gone
through. Recorded the submission of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC
for the State, who produced a copy of the letter dated 24th
November, 2025 received by the office of the learned AG,
Odisha indicating therein that the injured victims have
consented to the affidavit filed by them with the petitioner. The
said letter of the IIC, Tihidi P.S. received and produced by Mr.
Sahoo, learned ASC today in Court be kept in record. As to the
joint affidavit at flag-D, the Court finds that the informant died
in the meantime, whereas, the injured, namely, P.Ws 5 & 6,
who are the LRs of the deceased informant amicably settled the
dispute between themselves in the meantime.
5. The submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the offence is compoundable in nature, hence,
the joint affidavit at flag-D should be accepted by the Court.
6. The Court finds that the offence under Section 325 IPC
is compoundable but with the leave of the court in view of the
Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. The alleged incident is of the year 1993
and in the meantime, more than thirty years have gone by. The
petitioner, who is claimed to be a disabled person in view of the
Disability Certificate issued as per Annexure-3, was convicted
by the learned courts below and has been directed to undergo a
sentence of three years with fine. But, having regard to the fact
that informant is dead and the injured persons are none other
than the LRs of the informant and there has been a settlement
reached at between the parties, the Court is of the view that the
dispute is required to be set at best with an order in terms of
Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. In other words, having regard to the
compromise between the petitioner and the injured victims,
notwithstanding the order of conviction and sentence awarded
and having regard to the fact that the alleged occurrence is
more than thirty years old, the compromise as per joint affidavit
at flag-D should be accepted in the interest of justice.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of. As
a necessary corollary, the impugned judgment dated 29th
November, in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2000 of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak is hereby set aside
accepting the compromise affidavit dated 27th October, 2025.
As a consequence, the petitioner is acquitted for the alleged
offence in accordance with Section 320(2) Cr.P.C.
9. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Kabita
