Orissa High Court
Hrusikesh @ Harekrushna vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 13 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.934 of 2025
Hrusikesh @ Harekrushna .... Petitioner
@ Niskranta Lenka Mr.P.K.Maharaj,
Advocate & Mr.
S.N.Gaya,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opp. Parties
Mr.Bibekananda
Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 13.03.2025
01.
1.
Heard.
2. At the instance of the private opposite party Nos.2,
3 & 4 the F.I.R. in connection with Niali P.S. Case
No.63 of 1992 corresponding to G.R. Case No.569(A) of
1992 came to be registered against the petitioner for
the alleged commission of offences punishable under
Sections 147/148/307/325/323/149 of the IPC,
pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Niali.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the
opposite party Nos.2 to 4 lodged F.I.R. in the Niali P.S.
alleging therein that, on 20.05.1992 after the election
of the Panchayat Samiti Member and Sarpanch, the
rally was organized. The informants were going in that
rally. On the way, they stopped near a tube well for
drinking the water. After drinking water, when they
were going to the rally, the petitioner along with other
accused persons assaulted them as a result of which
the informants sustained injuries on their body.
Hence, the F.I.R.
4. After the investigation, the charge sheet has already
been filed in the present case on 18.08.1992.
5. Nine accused persons have been apprehended and
they faced the trial and subsequently all of them have
been acquitted.
6. In so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he
was shown as absconder.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there was a confusion in the name, parentage and the
address of the petitioner. Therefore, the N.B.W. could
not be executed. When the petitioner came to know
regarding pendency of the present case, he has
approached this Court by filing the present petition for
quashing of the F.I.R. He has also settled the dispute
with the complainant.
8. The petitioner and all the complainants are present
in the Court today. They are being represented by their
respective counsels and identified by them. They have
also filed the photocopies of their self-attested Aadhaar
Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on
record.
9. Learned counsels for the parties conjointly submit
that the trial in the present case has not been
commenced at yet.
10. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State opposed the prayer
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner is an absconder. Therefore,
on the ground of settlement, at the belated stage, the
F.I.R. should not be quashed.
11. Regard being had to the nature of the offences,
which are very minor and the fact that the case is
pending since 1992, I am inclined to allow the present
petition.
12. The fact remains that the allegation against the
petitioner is minor in nature. Apart from that the
warrant issued against the petitioner way back in the
year 1992 could not be executed even though the
petitioner himself is an employee of the F.M.
University. Therefore, it is apparent that he has never
been absconded. Rather, the N.B.W. could not be
executed.
13. Be that as it may, since the parties have settled
the dispute and they have also filed an affidavit dated
13.03.2025 before this Court, the case of the petitioner
is squarely covered by 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.
14. The opposite party Nos.2, 3 & 4 have filed separate
affidavits dated 13.03.2025, inter alia, commonly
stating as under:
1. That I am one of the informants in connection
with Niali P.S. Case No.63 of 1992 corresponding to
G.R. Case No.569(A) of 1992 now pending in the
Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Niali, where the
petitioner in the aforesaid CRLMC is the accused
person and I am opposite party No.2.
2. That in the meantime charge-sheet has already
been submitted against the petitioner under
Sections- 147/ 148/ 324/ 323/149 of I.P.C. which
is under challenge in the aforesaid CRLMC and the
same is pending before this Hon'ble Court.
3. That due to some misunderstanding, I along with
opposite party No.3 and 4 have lodged the aforesaid
F.I.R. before the I.I.C., Niali Police Station.
4. That in the meantime due to the intervention of
the local gentries, the matter has already been
settled between us opposite party No.2 to 4 and the
accused-petitioner and I do not want to proceed with
the case henceforth.
5. That, I am swearing this affidavit without being
influenced or biased or fear but in a good state of
mind, the facts stated above are true to the best of
the knowledge, and belief of the deponent."
15. Regard being had to the aforementioned facts and
circumstances and the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties at the Bar, I am
inclined to allow the present petition and quash the
charge sheet dated 18.08.1992 and the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the present
petitioner.
16. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions
made at the Bar, the charge sheet dated 18.08.1992
and the F.I.R. in connection with Niali P.S. Case No.63
of 1992 corresponding to G.R. Case No.569(A) of 1992
pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Niali and the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the
petitioner are quashed, subject to the present
petitioner paying the cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two
thousand) to each of the opposite parties
17. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:20:51
