Orissa High Court
Bidya Sethi And Another vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 31 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 2680 of 2016
Bidya Sethi and another .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 31.01.2025
14. 1. Mr. Rakesh Behera, learned counsel enters appearance on
behalf of opposite party no.2 and files Vakalatnama, which is taken on
record.
2. Heard.
3. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in
Piipili P.S. Case No. 464 of 2012 came to be registered against the
petitioners corresponding to ICC Case No. 96 of 2013, pending in
the court of the learned JMFC, Pipili for the alleged commission of
offences under Sections 294/506 IPC.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the informant-
opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR before the Pipili Police Station
alleging therein that the petitioners have assaulted the wife of
opposite party no.2 and threatened him to kill and book him in false
case.
5. In the present case, the final form has already been
submitted by the Investigating Officer on 30.08.2013. Being
aggrieved by the closure report filed by the police, opposite party
no.2 filed protest petition before the court below. In the protest
petition, statement of the complainant and other witnessses were
recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and cognizance of offence
punishable under Sections 341/323/294/506/34 of IPC was taken
by the court below vide order dated 27.01.2016.
6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
although cognizance of offences have been taken by the learned
JMFC, Pipili vide order dated 27.01.2016, the trial has not yet been
commenced. He also submits that petitioner no.2 has already
expired on 14.09.2021 and to that effect a death certificate has been
placed on record.
7. When the matter stood thus, the parties have arrived at a
settlement and on the basis of the settlement terms, the present
petition has been filed seeking quashing of the entire criminal
prosecution.
8. Petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2 are present in 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. The parties have
filed a joint affidavit dated 31.01.2025 inter alia stating as under:-
"3. That, on my protest to the above FRT, the learned JMFC,
Pipili in ICC No.96/2013 took cognizance u/s
341/323/294/506/34 of IPC by order dated 27.01.2016.
4. That, challenging the above order of cognizance both the
accused persons (petitioners herein) have filed this present
CRLMC No.2680/2016.
5. That, in the meantime, petitioner no.2 (Chakradhari Sethi) is
deceased on 14.09.2021. Only accused remains petitioner no.1
(Bijaya Sethi). There is no allegation against any other person
in my case.
6. That, by intervention of village gentries the matter is now
amicably settled and we both parties do not want to proceed
further in this case. Accordingly, I have no objection if the
present CRLMC is allowed and the order of cognizance dated
27.01.2016 passed in ICC No.96 of 2013 and consequential
criminal proceeding in the court of learned JMFC, Pipili is
quashed.
7. That the parties further undertake to abide following terms
and conditions:
a. That, the present matter is amicably settled and
both the parties have no objection if the present CRLMC is
allowed and the order of cognizance dated 27.01.2016 passed
in ICC No. 96 of 2013 and consequential criminal proceeding
pending in the court of learned JMFC, Pipili is quashed.
Neither party will initiate any case against the other party for
the same cause of action in future.
b. That, the parties will not make any allegation
against each other neither in public nor on social media or any
other platform.
c. That, both the parties have agreed to remain in
cordial relationship in the village without any future dispute.
d. That, both the parties have agreed to abide by the
above terms and conditions any by any party violating any of
the above terms and conditions will be punished as per law."
9. On the query from the Court, opposite partyno.2 stated that
on the intervention of well-wishers and village gentries, they have
arrived at a settlement and pursuance to the same the petitioner has
filed this petition seeking quashing of the proceeding.
10. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State submits that
since the parties have settled the dispute and file affidavit before
this Court, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceeding.
11. Regard being had to the allegation made by the opposite
party no.2 against the petitioners and the fact that they have settled
the dispute and filed affidavit before this Court, I am inclined to
allow the present petition. Further, continuation of the present
proceeding will not endure to the benefit to either parties and,
therefore, in these circumstances subjecting the petitioner no.1 to
rigors of the trial is destined to be futile exercise. The case of the
petitioner no.1 is directly covered by 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.
12. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with
Pipili P.S. Case No. 464 of 2012 corresponding to ICC Case No. 96
of 2013, pending in the court of the learned JMFC, Pipili is
quashed.
13. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 31-Jan-2025 18:43:44
