Orissa High Court
Kanha @ Ajit Kumar vs State Of Odisha & .... Opp. Parties on 10 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2842 of 2024
Kanha @ Ajit Kumar .... Petitioner
Das Mr. Ranjit Mohanty,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & .... Opp. Parties
Another Mrs. S. Moharana, ASC,
Mr. A.K. Nayak,
Advocate (O.P.No.2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 10.03.2025
03.
1.
Heard.
2. At the instance of Informant-Ashalata Malik,
daughter of Basanta Malik, the F.I.R. in connection
with Pattamundai P.S. Case No.23 of 2024
corresponding to G.R. Case No.58 of 2024 came to be
registered against the petitioner for the alleged
commission of offences punishable under Section-
342/354/354(A) of the IPC. But the petitioner contends
that subsequently police converted the case into the
offence under Section-376 of the IPC read with Section-
3(i)(r) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, pending in the Court of
learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the
opposite party No.2 reported the case at Pattamundai
P.S. alleging that, on 14th January 2024, at about 4.00
p.m. the present petitioner wrongfully restrained the
opposite party no.2 on the way by dragging her dress
and outraged her modesty. Hence, the F.I.R.
4. Investigation of the case is going on, but at this
stage, the parties are entered into settlement.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
there is long standing civil dispute pending between the
family members of both the parties. The incident has
arisen out of the dispute in civil allegations.
6. The parties have settled their dispute and the
opposite party No.2-victim, filed an affidavit dated
29.06.2024, inter alia, stating as under:-
"2. That, due to land dispute between the
family of Kanha @ Ajit Kumar Das, son of
Hagura @ Subrat Kumar Das of Vill./
P.O.: Amrutamanohi and with our family.
There was quarrel and that quarrel was
settle in our village by the village gentries,
but being instructed by the village
gentries, and by my brother, I went to the
Choudakulat Out Post to intimate the
matter of settlement between us and
between the accused-Kanha @ Ajit Kumar
Das.
3. That, the person which name I do not
know, I requested him to write the
context of settlement but the F.I.R. writer
wrote in different way which I have not
instructed to him.
4. That, while writing the F.I.R. on
01.01.2024, the scriber has not read over
the contents of the F.I.R. to me nor I have
read over the F.I.R as I do not know
reading, writing, save and except singing
my name.
5. That, as per the instruction of the
scriber, I put my signature before the
Officer-In-Charge, Choudakulat Out Post
after getting the F.I.R., the Inspector, Sri
Ranjit Mohanty registered a case vide P.S.
Case No.23/24 dated 19.1.24 and the
alleged offences under U/s.342/354/354-
(A) of the IPC, but subsequently police
turned the case into 376 IPC read with
Section 3(1)(r) of the SC & ST (POA) Act,
1989 against the accused Kanha @ Ajit
Kumar Das.
6. That, Police instructed and brought
me to the J.M.F.C., Pattamundai for
recording of statement U/s.164 of the
Cr.P.C. as per the instruction, I came to
the learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai, due
to fear I gave my statement as per the
instruction of the police.
7. that, the statement and the F.I.R. not
according to my will but due to police
fear, I gave my statement before the
learned Magistrate which is not at all
correct.
8. That, Kanha @ Ajit Kumar Das have
neither committed any sexual assault or
rebuked me by taking the same of my
caste.
9. That, due to land dispute which was
occurred is very minor which was also
settled by the village gentries and now
our family and the family of Kanha @ Ajit
Das are residing peacefully in the village
and there is no apprehension of breach of
peace among us as we are very close
neighbours, there is no dispute nor any
quarrel with us and to the family of the
accused.
10. That, when the matter has been
settled due to misguide of the police, I do
not want to proceed with the case further
and at the same time, if the case vide
Pattamundai P.S. Case No.23/24
corresponding to G.R. case No.88/24 will
be quashed and the accused is
discharged. I have no objection at the
same time, my family have not also any
objection.
11. That, the contents described in the
affidavit are read over and explained to
me in Odia after understanding the
contents, I found them to be true and
sign the affidavit in my normal mind as
per my will without being undue
influence and force or fear by the accused
or anybody".
7. Petitioner and the opposite party No.2 are
present in person in Court today represented by their
counsels. They have also filed the photocopies of their
self attested Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity,
which are taken on record.
8. The opposite party No.2 is present in the Court
being represented by her counsel and submits that due
to misunderstanding and sudden provocation, she has
lodged the F.I.R. However, due to the intervention of the
well-wishers and the village gentries, they have settled
the dispute. Therefore, she does not want to proceed
with the case intimated by her against the petitioner as
per the settlement.
8. Mrs. Moharana, learned Additional Standing
Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1-State
and Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned Counsel for the opposite
party No.2 submit that the dispute between the parties
is admittedly a civil dispute between the family
members of both the parties is admittedly a civil
dispute between the family members of both the
parties, which is pending. Therefore, there is no legal
impediment in quashing the F.I.R.
10. Regard being had to the submissions made above,
and the fact that the parties have settled their dispute, I
am inclined to allow the present petition. In the fact
scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioners
to the rigors of trial at this stage would be a futile
exercise. The present case is squarely covered by the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported
in 2012 (10) SCC 303; B.S. Joshi & others v. State
of Haryana & another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675
and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & another v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others,
reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition
deserves merit.
11. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions made
at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Pattamundai
P.S. Case No.23 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.58 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.,
Pattamundai and the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed, subject to
the petitioner paying cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five
thousand) to the opposite party No.2-Informant.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Designation: Personal Assistant Judge
Narayan Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 11-Mar-2025 20:55:19
