Orissa High Court
Bijay Kumar Nayak And vs State Of Odisha And Another .... Opp. ... on 7 November, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3177 of 2022
Bijay Kumar Nayak and .... Petitioners
another
Mr. B. Mansinga, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opp. Parties
Ms. Siva Mohanty, Addl. P. P.
For O.P. No.1
Ms. D. Behera, Advocate
For O.P. No.2
CRLMC No.3583 of 2025
Ganadhip Nayak and Others .... Petitioners
Mr. B. Mansinga, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opp. Parties
Ms. Siva Mohanty, Addl. P. P.
For O.P. No.1
Ms. D. Behera, Advocate
For O.P. No.2
CRLMC No.3584 of 2025
Saroj Biswal and Others .... Petitioners
Ms. D. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opp. Parties
CRLMC No. 3177 of 2022, CRLMC Nos. 3583 &3584 of 2025 Page 1 of 7
Ms. Siva Mohanty, Addl. P. P.
For O.P. No.1
Mr. B. Mansingh, Advocate
For O.P. No.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 07.11.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of the present application, the Petitioners seek to
quash the order dated 10.01.2021 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.,
Aul in G.R. Case No.265 of 2020, whereby cognizance of offences
was taken pursuant to Charge-Sheet No.272 dated 30.12.2020 under
Sections 341/323/307/336/506/34 of the IPC, implicating the
Petitioners.
2. The present petition is heard together with CRLMC
No.3583 of 2025 and CRLMC No.3584 of 2025, as all the three
matters emanate from the same series of events alleged to have
occurred on 12.07.2020. While CRLMC Nos.3177 of 2022 and
3583 of 2025 assail the order of cognizance dated 10.01.2021
passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Aul in G.R. Case No.265 of 2020
arising out of Rajkanika P.S. Case No.157 of 2020, CRLMC
No.3584 of 2025 challenges the cognizance order passed in G.R.
Case No.266 of 2020 arising out of the connected Rajkanika P.S.
Case No.158 of 2020. Both P.S. cases relate to the same occurrence,
involve the same set of accused persons, and the allegations are
intertwined. The applications, therefore, rest on a substantially
similar factual foundation and raise identical grounds regarding the
effect of compromise and the applicability of the principles
governing quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, both
applications are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The background facts of the case, in brief, are that one Saroj
Biswal, son of Late Natabar Biswal of village Gomunda under
Rajkanika P.S., district Kendrapada, lodged a written report on
19.07.2020, alleging that on 12.07.2020 he had a quarrel with one
Ganadhipa Nayak. Though the village gentries repeatedly requested
him to resolve the issue amicably, at about 6:30 a.m. on 19.07.2020,
while his brother was proceeding through the village danda, the
accused persons allegedly intercepted him and assaulted him. On
witnessing this, the Informant rushed to the spot, whereupon the
accused persons assaulted both brothers by means of kicks and fist
blows, pressed his neck and nose, and struck his head with an iron
rod with the intention to take his life. As a result of the assault, both
sustained bleeding injuries. The information further discloses that
the accused persons also threw bottles at them.
4. On the basis of the said report, Rajkanika P.S. Case No.157
of 2020 dated 19.07.2020 was registered for the offences under
Sections 341/323/307/336/354/506/34 of the IPC, and investigation
commenced. Upon completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet
No.272 dated 30.12.2020 was submitted implicating the Petitioners
along with several others.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned
counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submitted during the course of
hearing that the dispute had arisen out of political rivalry and was
subsequently settled between the parties on the intervention of
village gentries. The Informant-Opposite Party No.2 has also sworn
an affidavit to that effect, filed on 06.09.2025.
6. At this stage, it becomes necessary to take note of the
exposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 7,
the Supreme Court disapproved the quashing of proceedings
involving an offence under Section 307 IPC on the ground of
settlement, observing that such offences are non-compoundable and
that allegations of a serious nature cannot be nullified merely on the
basis of compromise.
"Be that as it may, the fact remains that the accused was
facing the criminal proceedings for the offences under
Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC and
that the offences under these sections are not
non-compoundable offences and, looking to the serious
allegations against the accused, we are of the opinion
that the High Court has committed a grave error in
quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences
under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC
solely on the ground that the original Complainant and
the accused have settled the dispute. At this stage, the
decision of this Court in the case of Gulab Das and Ors.
V. State of M.P. (2011) 12 SCALE 625 is required to be
referred to. In the said decision, this Court has
specifically observed and held that, despite any
settlement between the Complainant on the one hand
and the accused on the other, the criminal proceedings
for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be
quashed, as the offence under Section 307 is a
noncompoundable offence."
Further clarity was provided by the larger Bench in State of
M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein
the Court explained that offences under Section 307 IPC constitute
crimes against society and therefore cannot ordinarily be quashed
upon compromise between private parties, as under:
"15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms
Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and
serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime
against the society and not against the individual alone,
and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence
under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which
have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed
in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on
the ground that the parties have resolved their entire
dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court
would not rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is
framed under this provision. It would be open to the
High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section
307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High
Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the
body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an
exercise by the High Court would be permissible only
after the evidence is collected after investigation and the
charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the
trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is
still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate
conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this
Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54]
should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole
and in the circumstances stated hereinabove."
7. Having regard to the settled position of law delineated in the
aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court
proceeds to examine the effect of the compromise placed on record.
8. Perusal of the averments made in the said affidavit discloses
that the Informant has entered into a compromise with the
Petitioners, and the dispute has been amicably settled. It is further
stated that he has no intention to implicate the Petitioners in the
alleged offences and that the compromise was voluntary and not
under duress or coercion. However, the averments made in the
affidavit do not disclose the intention of the Informant not to
proceed further with the case pending before the learned A.D.J.,
Pattamundai. As such, even if the fact of compromise is taken note
of, this Court is unable to arrive at a conclusion that the Informant
has no intention to pursue the case further.
9. The order dated 02.07.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court in CRLMC No.1690 of 2025, as relied upon by
learned counsel for the Petitioners, is distinguishable in facts. In the
said case, the Informant had unequivocally expressed his intention
not to proceed with the matter, as recorded in paragraph 8 of the
order. Furthermore, the charge-sheet had not been submitted
therein. The factual matrix, therefore, stands on a different footing
and the said decision does not advance the case of the Petitioners.
10. In view of the settled legal position, and upon consideration
of the materials placed before this Court, this Court is not persuaded
to hold that the present case falls within the limited category where
the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be
exercised on the ground of compromise. The affidavit filed by the
Informant does not unequivocally disclose his intention to withdraw
from the prosecution pending before the learned A.D.J.,
Pattamundai, nor does it indicate that the substratum of the
accusation stands obliterated.
11. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the stage of
the proceedings, and the absence of any compelling circumstance
warranting interference, this Court is of the considered view that the
prayer for quashing the order dated 10.01.2021 passed by the
learned J.M.F.C., Aul in G.R. Case No.265 of 2020 arising out of
Rajkanika P.S. Case No.157 of 2020 and quashing of criminal
proceeding in G.R. Case No.266 of 2020 in the Court of learned
JMFC, Aul which arises out of Rajkanika P.S. Case No.158 of 2020
does not merit acceptance.
12. Accordingly, the present CRLMC along with CRLMC
No.3583 of 2025 and CRLMC No.3584 of 2025 stand disposed of
in terms of the observations made hereinabove.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
AKPradhan
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 10-Nov-2025 17:24:21
