Orissa High Court
Binati Behera And Another vs State Of Orissa .... Opp. Party on 26 November, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.507 of 2021
Binati Behera and another .... Petitioners
Mr. D. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Opp. Party
Mr. A. K. Apat, Addl. P. P.
CRLMC No.504 of 2021
Rajeeb Lochan Behera and .... Petitioners
another
Mr. D. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa and another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. A. K. Apat, Addl. P. P.
For O.P. No.1
Mr. B. Mishra, Advocate
For O.P. No.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 26.11.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of these present applications, the Petitioners seek
to quash the proceeding in connection with C.T. Case No.4431 of
2018 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar,
corresponding to Laxmisagar P.S. Case No.256 of 2018.
2. The background facts of the case are that the Petitioners in
CRLMC No. 507 of 2021 are Smt. Binati Behera and her husband,
Sri Ranjan Kumar Behera, the latter being a Central Government
employee serving as a Postal Assistant. The Petitioners in CRLMC
No. 504 of 2021 are Sri Rajeeb Lochan Behera and his younger
brother, Sri Sanjeeb Kumar Behera, both being the sons of the
Petitioners in CRLMC No. 507 of 2021. The prosecution in both
CRLMCs arises out of a common FIR, namely Laxmisagar P.S.
Case No. 256 dated 30.09.2018 corresponding to C.T. Case No.
4431 of 2018 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.
The said FIR was lodged by Smt. Anita Padhi (Opposite Party
No.2) alleging that she and her sister, Smt. Rashmita Padhi, had
been residing as tenants in Plot No. EB-44 for the last six years. On
30.09.2018 at about 7:30 p.m., when Rashmita returned home, she
found the main gate of the residential complex locked from inside.
It was alleged that the wife of the house owner and her two sons
who correspond to the Petitioners in CRLMC No.507 of 2021 and
CRLMC No.504 of 2021 had locked the gate due to repeated entry
of stray dogs into the premises, which according to them was
caused by the negligence of the tenants in not keeping the gate
properly secured. An altercation ensued between the tenants and the
accused persons over this issue, which led to the lodging of the FIR
for offences under Sections 294/506/34 of the IPC. Upon
completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet was submitted vide F.F.
No. 226 dated 11.12.2020. Thus, both sets of Petitioners stand
implicated in the same occurrence, the same FIR and the same
charge-sheet, the allegations being common and arising out of a
single landlord-tenant.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that
during pendency of the present application, a compromise has been
reached between the parties at the intervention of well-wishers.
4. A joint affidavit has been filed dated 03.04.2025, indicating
the parties' mutual decision not to proceed with the case. From the
affidavit, it appears that Informant-Anita Padhi, has voluntarily and
without any coercion agreed not to pursue the matter further, in
order to maintain harmony and cordial relations.
5. On perusal of the case record, it is evident that the offences
alleged are under Sections 294/506/34 of the IPC, which are minor
in nature. The background facts suggest that the dispute arose out of
a verbal exchange between the landlord and the tenant, without any
element of criminal intent or intimidation. There is no material on
record to indicate that the alleged exchange of words caused
annoyance to the Informant in public view, nor does it appear that
the acts complained of were done in furtherance of common
intention.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, has elucidated the
principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings on the
basis of compromise.
"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 C 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."
7. In view of the amicable settlement reached between the
parties and considering the trivial nature of the dispute, continuation
of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process
of law. Accordingly, this Court deems it proper to quash the
proceeding in C.T. Case No.4431 of 2018 arising out of Laxmisagar
P.S. Case No.256 of 2018, pending before the learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhubaneswar.
8. Both the CRLMCs are disposed of accordingly.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
AKPradhan
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 27-Nov-2025 15:14:15
