[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
) Tukuna Swain vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 16 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4779 of 2025
1) Tukuna Swain ..... Petitioners
2) Madana Bisoy Represented by Adv. -
Kuresh Prasad Dash
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Kuni Sahu Represented by Adv. -
Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C.
Wasif Khan, Adv.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 16.12.2025
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the
learned counsel for the Informant and learned counsel for the
State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of the
B.N.S.S., 2023, the accused-Petitioners seeks quashing of the
entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bhanjanagr P.S. Case
No.276 dated 17.03.2025 which corresponds to G.R. Case
No.502 of 2025 now pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhanjanagar for alleged commission of an offence punishable
under Sections 331(4)/ 74/ 324(4)/ 115(2)/ 126(2)/ 109/ 296/
351(2)/ 3(5) of the B.N.S. read with Section 4(1)/ 4(2) of the
Odisha Prevention of Witch Hunting Act,2013.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended
that an F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of the one Kuni Sahu as
informant on 17.03.2025 making allegation against the
petitioners and some of the co-accused persons. Accordingly, the
F.I.R. was registered by the Bhanjanagar police station and on
completion of the investigation and charge sheet has been filed
against the accused persons under the alleged sections. He
further contended that in the meantime, some of the co-accused
persons faced trial and they have been acquitted of all charges.
5. So far as the accused-Petitioners are concerned learned
counsel for the Petitioners contended that the matter has been
amicably settled between the informant and the present
Petitioners and in support of such compromise a settlement deed
has been executed on 30.10.2025, which has been annexed to the
present application as Annexure-3. Referring to the settlement
deed at Annexure-3, learned counsel for the Petitioners
contended that the parties have decided to settle the dispute
amicably and that the informant shall not proceed in the present
criminal case. Subject to such settlement the parties have agreed
to live peacefully in the locality. Learned counsel for the
Petitioners further submitted that the Informant is no more
interested to proceed with the present criminal case. On such
ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the
entire criminal proceeding be quashed as the ultimate chance of
conviction therein is bleak since some of the co-accused persons
have been acquitted and, in the meantime, the case against the
Petitioners has been settled on compromise.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of the ground of
compromise. He further submitted that the offences alleged
under the Odisha Prevention of Witch-Hunting Act, 2013 is an
offence against the society at large. Further, referring to
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the
State contended that such offences cannot be quashed. He
further submitted that since some of the co-accused persons have
already been acquitted it is open to the Petitioners to face trial.
On such ground, learned counsel for the State objected to the
quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the
Petitioners.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of
the background facts, further taking note of the gravity and
seriousness of the allegation, this Court observes that since the
offences alleged against the Petitioners fall under the Odisha
Prevention of Witch-Hunting Act, 2013, shall offences are
basically in the nature of a crime against the society at large and,
as such, cannot be quashed in exercise the inherent powers of the
Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Although it appears from
record that the matter has been amicably settled between the
Petitioners and the informant, in view of the aforesaid position,
while disposing of the present application this Court grants
liberty to the Petitioners to raise all the grounds during the trial.
Further, keeping in view the fact that some of the co-accused
persons have been acquitted in the meantime, the learned trial
court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four
months from the date of communication of a copy of today's
order.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present
CRLMC application stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
