Orissa High Court
Binodini Mandhata vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 27 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1051 of 2025
Binodini Mandhata .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. A. S. Paul, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Party(s)
Ms. S. Moharana, ASC
Mr. B. K. Behera, Advocate for O.P.2
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 27.03.2025
02. 1. Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. dated
13.08.2021 in Nayapali P.S. Case No.379 of 2021 came to be
registered against the petitioner for the alleged commission of the
offences under Sections 420/468/323/294/506/34 of I.P.C. On the
ground of settlement, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the F.I.R
and consequential proceedings.
3. The informant/opposite party No.2 lodged a complaint
being I.C.C. Case No.2636 of 2021before the learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhubaneswar against the present petitioner and other two accused
persons inter alia alleging therein that in a family function, he met
with one Chinmay Pradhan, who insisted him to purchase a plot
from one Prabir Mohanty. Thereafter, the complainant had paid
Rs.10,00,000/- as advance. It is alleged that the complainant had
availed a bank loan and the accused persons namely Chinmay
Pradhan and Prabir Mohanty convinced him to purchase another
plot from the present petitioner. The sale deed was executed
between the petitioner and the complainant. Subsequently, the
complainant had given Rs.10,00,000/- to the present petitioner for
sale of the property. It is further alleged that all the transaction and
sale purchase was made smoothly on 17.03.2017 but on 15.12.2020,
the complainant came to know that the land mutated in his favour
was cancelled. On the direction of the learned trial Court, the F.I.R.
was registered on 13.08.2021 being Nayapali P.S. Case No.379 of
2021 against the petitioner. Hence, this case.
4. The dispute is arising out of land dealing. The opposite
party No.2 alleges that although he had paid the money towards the
purchase of land, however, the petitioner has not given the
possession of the subject land. The F.I.R is at the nascent stage of
investigation. At this stage, the parties have entered into a
settlement and has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the
entire criminal proceeding.
5. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 are present in
the Court and being represented and identified by their counsels.
They have also filed self-attested copy of their Aadhaar Cards to
establish their identity, which are taken on record.
6. The opposite party No.2 has filed an affidavit dated
27.03.2025 inter alia stating as under:-
"1. I am the informant in Nayapali PS Case No.379,
dtd. 13.08.2021 registered for the offences under Sec.
420, 468, 323, 294, 505 & 34 of IPC against the
petitioner in the above noted Criminal Misc. Case
No.1051 /2025 and two others, corresponding to CT
Case No.4437 of 2021 in the file of Learned SDJM,
Bhubaneswar.
2. That, the aforesaid PS was registered by Nayapali
Police by virtue of direction of the learned SDJM,
Bhubaneswar in 1CC Case No.2636/2021 as per the
provision U/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide order dtd.
21.07.2021.
3. That, in the FIR I have alleged that the petitioner
and other accused persons namely Chinmaya
Pradhan and Prabir Mohanty all have cheated me for
an amount of Rs.24,25,000/- in the guise of selling
land in my favour.
4. That, in the meanwhile, after registration of the
FIR, the dispute between me and the accused persons
have been settled and that I have received my entire
consideration money paid to the accused persons
from them for purchasing the land and accordingly I
have no more claim as per my FIR allegation against
the accused persons including the present petitioner
and that also as victim since the matter could be
subsequently settled therefore I do not want to pursue
my allegation leveled in the FIR so also the above
criminal case lodged against all the accused persons
any further. Thus if the said FIR lodged by me and the
Criminal proceeding arising out of said FIR is
dropped and the accused are set at free then I shall
have no objection to the same."
7. On query from the Court, the opposite party No.2, who is
present in Court submits that he has got back the entire money to
the tune of Rs.24,00,000/- from the petitioner. Therefore, he does
not want to proceed with the case against the petitioner as he has
settled the dispute with the petitioner.
8. Ms. Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
the State submits that since the dispute is arising out of land leading
and the parties have settled their dispute and the opposite party
No.2 has received the entire amount, this Court may give
indulgence in the present matter as there is no legal impediment.
9. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have settled
their dispute and keeping in view 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, I am of
the considered view that subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of the
trial would be a futile exercise. Therefore, the petition deserves
merit.
10. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with
Nayapali P.S. Case No.379 of 2021 corresponding to C.T. Case
No.4437 of 2021 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhubaneswar and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom
qua the petitioner are quashed.
11. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 28-Mar-2025 14:01:34
