Orissa High Court
) Anirudha Swain vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 3 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2271 of 2025
1) Anirudha Swain ..... Petitioners
2) Bipra Swain Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sanjib Kumar
Bhanjadeo
-versus-
1) State of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Sabita Swain Represented By Adv. -
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
Mr. Bijay Kumar Behera,
Advocate for the O.P.
No.2-Informant
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
03.07.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Mr. Bijay Kumar Behera, learned counsel and his
associates enter appearance on behalf of the Informant-Opposite
Party No.2 by filing a Vakalatnama in Court, which be kept on
record.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel
for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant as well as learned counsel
for the State-Opposite Party No.1. Perused the application as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
4. By filing the present application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., the Petitioners seek quashing of the criminal proceeding
in connection with G.R. Case No.186/2009(A), arising out of
Kodala P.S. Case No.58 of 2009, pending in the court of learned
J.M.F.C., Khallikote.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset,
contended that the dispute between the parties has been amicably
settled. In order to substantiate his argument, learned counsel
for the Petitioners referred to the judgment dated 15.04.2017 in
S.T. No.204/2016 (S.T.65/2016), arising out of Kodala P.S. Case
No.58 of 2009. On perusal of the said judgment, it appears that
the learned trial court in paragraph-6 of the judgment has
categorically reflected the statement of the Informant-P.W.1.
Reading of paragraph-6 of the judgment reveals that she does
not know anything about the case, though she has proved the
F.I.R., which is marked as Ext.-1, with her signature thereof.
The injured witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have stated before
the court that they have not sustained any injury. Further, it
reveals that the witnesses admitted before the court that the
matter has already been compromised among themselves and
that now they are living peacefully in their village without any
disturbances. Learned court below has observed that the injured
persons did not support the case of the prosecution. As such, the
trial court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has
failed to prove the offences as alleged in the charge sheet.
Accordingly, the co-accused persons were discharged by the trial
court vide judgment under Annexure-4. Learned counsel for the
Petitioners, at this juncture, contended that compelling the
present Petitioners to face the trial would be a futile exercise and
the same would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant
filed an affidavit in Court today which was sworn by the
Informant before the Oath Commissioner. On perusal of the said
affidavit, a copy of which has been served on the learned
counsel for the State, reveals that initially the F.I.R. was lodged
due to misunderstanding between the parties. In the meantime,
the co-accused persons have been acquitted. The affidavit
further reveals that due to interference of the local people the
matter has been amicably settled between the Petitioners and the
Opposite Party No.2 and that the Informant has no objection if
the criminal proceeding is quashed by the this Court. On such
ground, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant
contended that the Informant has no objection in the event this
Court is pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding.
7. Learned counsel for the State contended that since the
Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2-Informant have settled
the dispute and they are living peacefully in the locality,
subjecting to the Petitioners to face further proceeding would be
an abuse of the process of law and the same would be a wastage
of valuable time of the court.
8. Taking into consideration the factual background of the
present case as well as keeping in view the affidavit sworn by
the Informant and placed before this Court for consideration as
well as the judgment dated 15.04.2017 under Annexure-4, this
Court is of the view that the further continuance of the present
criminal proceeding would be wastage of valuable time of court
and an abuse of the process of law as the prosecution witnesses
have not supported the case of the Petitioners.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed
and the entire criminal proceeding launched against the
Petitioners vide G.R. Case No.186/2009(A) pending in the court
of learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote is quashed, so far the present
Petitioners are concerned. The learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote or
the Court in seisin over the matter shall, on receipt of this
order/production of the certified copy of this order, close the
proceeding in the aforesaid case in compliance of this order.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
