Orissa High Court
Tajuddin Khan vs State Of Odisha And Another ..... Opp. ... on 15 October, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2677 of 2025
Tajuddin Khan ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Laxman Pradhan
-versus-
State of Odisha and another ..... Opp. Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA
Mr. C.R. Satpathy,
Advocate for O.P. No.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
15.10.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the
Opposite Party No.2-Informant and learned counsel for the State-
Opposite Party No.1. Perused the application as well as the prayer made
therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the
Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated
against him vide G.R. Case No.511 of 2011 pending in the court of
learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur as well as the order of cognizance and
N.B.W. dated 29.05.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur
in G.R. Case No.511 of 2011, arising out of Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case
No.116 of 2011, which was registered for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 376/294/354/506/34 of I.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that
the above noted case was registered due to a misunderstanding between
the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2-Informant. He further
submitted that in the meantime, the matter has been amicably resolved
and that the Opposite Party No.2-Informant does not want to proceed
further in this case. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the
Petitioner also referred the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party
No.2-Informant wherein the Opposite Party No.2-Informant has
categorically stated that she has married in the meantime and has been
leaving happily with her husband at her in-laws house peacefully and in
the meantime she has also been blessed with two children. She has also
stated that with the interference of well-wishers and relatives, the matter
has been amicably settled and that she does not want to proceed further
in this case, and that she will have no objection in the event this Court
quashes the entire criminal proceeding.
5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant, on the
other hand, supported the submission made by the learned counsel for
the Petitioner. He further submitted that the dispute has been amicably
resolved and that the Informant has started her peaceful life and she has
been blessed with two children in the meantime. He has also referred to
the affidavit filed before this Court by the Opposite Party No.2-
Informant in support of his contention. On such ground, learned counsel
for the Informant contended that he will have no objection in the event
the entire criminal proceeding is quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to the
quashing of the proceedings. In course of his argument, learned counsel
for the State submitted that taking into consideration the gravity and
seriousness of the allegation and the fact that the alleged crime is a crime
against the society at large, therefore, this Court should not exercise its
inherent power for quashing of the proceeding on the ground of
compromise. In view of the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the
State referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303
and contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the inherent
power to quash the proceeding cannot be exercised in a case where the
crime involved is of such a nature that it can be considered as a crime
against the society. The offences involved in the present case, being in
the nature of a crime against the society, the inherent power of this Court
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to quash the
proceeding. On such ground, learned counsel for the State objected to
the quashment of the entire criminal proceeding.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as
the submissions made, further taking into consideration the affidavit
filed at the instance of the Informant, this Court is of the view that even
though the matter has been amicably resolved, which is evident from the
affidavit filed by the Informant and such affidavit has been supported by
the counsel appearing for the Informant, this Court is of the view that the
inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be
exercised in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gian Singh's case (supra).
8. Accordingly, the present application is being disposed of by
directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the
same as expeditiously as possible. It is further directed that the evidence
of the Informant be recorded at the earliest.
9. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that an
N.B.W. has been issued against the Petitioner.
10. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submission, the Petitioner
is granted liberty to surrender in the aforesaid case in the first hour
before the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur within four
weeks hence and make a motion for bail. In such eventuality, the
learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur shall consider and dispose of the bail
application of the Petitioner strictly on the basis of the materials on
record in the first hour. In case of rejection of the bail application, the
Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour.
On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail
application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the
materials on record. While considering the bail application of the
Petitioner, the court in seisin over the matter shall take into
consideration the observation made hereinabove.
11. Case Diary be made available to the concerned courts. Records be
transmitted to the higher forum at the cost of the Petitioner, if applied
for.
12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC stands
disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis/Sisir
