Orissa High Court
Saroj Kumar Sethy vs State Of Odisha on 2 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 3926 of 2024
Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
--------------
1. Saroj Kumar Sethy
2. Soumya Ranjan Sethi
3. Rabindra Harichandan
4. Kandu @ Sangram Keshari Harichandan
5. Upendra Badajena
6. Milu Badajena @ Shyama Bandhu Badajena
7. Purusottam Badajena
..... Petitioners
-versus-
1. State of Odisha
2. Bidulata Behera ..... Opposite Parties
For Petitioners : Mr. Kalpataru Khuntia, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA
Mr. Debasis Sahoo, Advocate
(for O.P. No.2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
02.05.2025
Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMC has been filed for quashing the criminal
proceeding in T.R. Case No. 33 of 2020 in the court of learned 2 nd
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khurda which arises out
of Jankia P.S. Case No. 137 of 2020, under Sections 448, 323, 324
, 325, 307, 354 and 34 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) (i) / 3 (1) (r)
/ 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) against the petitioners
by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khurda.
2. Joint affidavit has been filed by the petitioners and the
opposite party no.2-informant, stating that the matters have been
amicably settled between them on the intervention of villagers and
local gentry and the parties are living peacefully and have no
enmity with each other and the informants do not want to proceed
against the petitioners and have no objection if the criminal
proceeding against the petitioners are quashed.
3. Mr. U.R. Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate
produced the instructions dated 02.05.2025 of the IIC Jankia P.S.,
Khordha in Jankia P.S. Case No. 137 of 2020 where it is stated
that he inquired about the credibility of the joint affidavit in the
presence of village gentries and local Sarpanch and found it to be
genuine and that the parties are now living peacefully in the
village and have settled the dispute. The instructions are taken on
record.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
4. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab : 2012
(10) SCC 303, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had
referred the matter to a larger Bench .The three judge Bench
answered the reference holding as follows :-
"57. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the
High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or
FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power
given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with
the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R
may be exercised where the offender and victim have
settled their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be
prescribed. However, before exercise of such power,
the High Court must have due regard to the nature
and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even
though the victim or victim's family and the offender
have settled the dispute. Such offences are not
private in nature and have serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and
offender in relation to the offences under special
statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working
in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour
stand on different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership
or such like transactions or the offences arising out
of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family
disputes where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved
their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High
Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the offender and
victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of criminal case would put
accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and complete
settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it
would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice,
it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end
and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
5. In the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh :
2021 INSC 664, (2021) 10 SCR 499 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966,
the appellants had been convicted by the learned trial court under
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo the
consequential sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.and their appeal against conviction had
been dismissed by the High Court. The convict died during
pendency of the appeal before the High Court. During pendency of
the appeal before the Supreme Court, the parties had settled the
matter amongst themselves and had filed an application for
compromise. By invoking their power under Article - 142 of the
Constitution of India, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal
proceedings. While doing so, the Supreme Court put a caveat that
power under Article - 142 or Section 482 can be exercised where
an appeal is pending before one or the other judicial forum. The
relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted below :
"18. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the
present, the Courts ought to be even more vigilant to
ensure that the complainant victim has entered into the
compromise on the volition of his / her free will and not
on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that
since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe belong to the weaker sections of our country, they
are more prone to acts of coercion, and therefore ought
to be accorded a higher level of protection. If the Courts
find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be
given to the accused party. What factors the Courts
should consider, would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case.
19. Having considered the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case in light of the afore-
stated principles, as well as having meditated on the
application for compromise, we are inclined to invoke
the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant
Criminal proceedings with the sole objective of doing
complete justice between the parties before us. We say
so for the reasons that:
Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST is to deter caste-based insults and intimidations
when they are used with the intention of demeaning a
victim on account of he/she belonging to the Scheduled
Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case,
the record manifests that there was an undeniable pre-
existing civil dispute between the parties. The case of the
Appellant, from the very beginning, has been that the
alleged abuses were uttered solely on account of
frustration and anger over the pending dispute. Thus,
the genesis of the deprecated incident was the afore-
stated civil/property dispute. Considering this aspect, we
are of the opinion that it would not be incorrect to
categorise the occurrence as one being overarchingly
private in nature, having only subtle undertones of
criminality, even though the provisions of a special
statute have been attracted in the present case.
Secondly, the offence in question, for which the
Appellant has been convicted, does not appear to exhibit
his mental depravity. The aim of the SC/ST Act is to
protect members of the downtrodden classes from
atrocious acts of the upper strata of the society. It
appears to us that although the Appellant may not
belong to the same caste as the Complainant, he too
belongs to the relatively weaker/backward section of the
society and is certainly not in any better economic or
social position when compared to the victim. Despite the
rampant prevalence of segregation in Indian villages
whereby members of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe community are forced to restrict
their quartes only to certain areas, it is seen that in the
present case, the Appellant and the Complainant lived in
adjoining houses. Therefore, keeping in mind the socio-
economic status of the Appellant, we are of the opinion
that the overriding objective of the SC/ST Act would not
be overwhelmed if the present proceedings are quashed.
Thirdly, the incident occurred way back in the year
1994. Nothing on record indicates that either before or
after the purported compromise, any untoward incident
had transpired between the parties. The State Counsel
has also not brought to our attention any other
occurrence that would lead us to believe that the
Appellant is either a repeat offender or is unremorseful
about what transpired.
Fourthly, the Complainant has, on her own free will,
without any compulsion, entered into a compromise and
wishes to drop the present criminal proceedings against
the accused.
Fifthly, given the nature of the offence, it is immaterial
that the trial against the Appellant had been concluded.
Sixthly, the Appellant and the Complainant parties are
residents of the same village and live in very close
proximity to each other. We have no reason to doubt
that the parties themselves have voluntarily settled their
differences. Therefore, in order to avoid the revival of
healed wounds, and to advance peace and harmony, it
will be prudent to effectuate the present settlement."
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
06. The petitioners and the informant's family are co-villagers.
There was civil dispute between the parties leading to filing of
different cases by both sides . Petitioner No. 1 had filed
demarcation case before the Tahasiladr Khurda in the year 2019 .
After demarcation was done , the petitioner had filed a proceeding
under Section 144 Cr.P.C against Bijay Behera on 18.05.2020 and
restrain order was passed on the next day i.e 19.05.2020 .On
2.06.2020 a proceeding under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C has been
initiated by Petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 has also lodged
FIR against Bijay Behera leading to registration of Jankia P.S.
case No. 131 of 2020. Thereafter Bijay Behera lodged FIR
leading to registration of Jankia P.S case No 132 of 2020 against
some of the petitioners . FIR has been lodged by one Puspanjali
Harichandan leading to registration of jankia P.S Case No 136 of
2020 against Bijay Behera and others .Thereafter FIR has been
lodged by opposite Party No. .2 Bidulata Behera leading to
registration of Jankia P.S Case No 137 of 2020 against the present
petitioners . With the intervention of village gentry , the dispute
between them is stated to have been settled . CRLMC No. 3923
of 2024 has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated
23.11.2020 passed in G.R. Case No. 755 of 2020 by the learned
JMFC (cog taking), Khurda which arises out of Jankia P.S. Case
No. 132 of 2020,
07. It is apparent from a perusal of the FIR and joint affidavit
that due to misunderstanding and previous dispute , the FIR in
Jankia P.S case No 137 of 2020 had been filed and now the matter
has been amicably settled . The dispute was personal in nature and
no public interest is involved.
08. This case therefore does fall in the category, which the
Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar (supra) has said should
not be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.
09. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for
the respective parties, the fact that the dispute has been amicably
settled between the parties who are co villagers and are now
residing peacefully in the village, and as the Opposite Party No.2
is no longer interested in pursuing the case against the petitioners,
the decisions on of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh
(supra) and Ramwatar (supra), I am of considered view that it
would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings
10. The proceedings in T.R. Case No. 33 of 2020 in the court
of learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khurda
which arises out of Jankia P.S. Case No. 137 of 2020 is quashed.
11. The CRLMC is disposed of .
...........................
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 2nd May, 2025.
puspa
Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 23-May-2025 19:05:12
