[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Laxmidhar Samal & vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 5 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 4813 of 2025
Laxmidhar Samal & .... Petitioner(s)
Anr. Mr. Harekrushna Dash, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
Mr. Panchanan Panigrahi,
Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
05.02.2026
Order No.
03.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioners have filed this CRLMC with a prayer to
quash the proceeding in connection with Binjharpur P.S. Case
No.35 of 2016 corresponding to G.R Case No.97 of 2016 pending in
the court of the learned SDJM, Jajpur.
3. The brief facts of the case, as alleged, are that on 08.12.2015
the Opposite Party No.2 lodged an FIR before Binjharpur P.S.
alleging therein that three persons, namely, the present petitioners
and one Prasanna Samal entered the house of the daughter in law
of Dharitri Samal and assaulted the informant and threatened to
Location: OHC
Date: 06-Feb-2026 15:06:45
put fire the house. It is further alleged that on 02.02.2016 at about
10 pm those three persons have put fire into the house and fled
away from the spot in the wat of their own land. At that time the
informant contacted the police station over telephone and they
have seen that some agricultural crops have destroyed.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the
petitioners and the informant belongs to one family. There was a
civil dispute and due to certain misunderstanding, the aforesaid
case was instituted against the petitioners. However, in the
meantime, the dispute between the parties has been resolved. So,
on that premises, the dispute has been resolved by way of filing a
joint affidavit in front of the village gentries and they wished to
put an end to all kinds of ill feelings towards one another.
5. This Court perused the joint affidavit filed by the parties.
The contents of the Joint Affidavit are extracted hereinbelow: -
"1.That the present Criminal Miscellaneous
Case (CRLMC) has been filed by the Petitioners
(Accused Persons) seeking quashing of the entire
criminal proceedings in Binjharpur P.S. Case No. 35
of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 97 of 2016
for offences under Section 436/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Digitally Signed 2. That the case was instituted on the basis
Reason: Authentication of a Written Report lodged by the Deponent, Pratap
Location: OHC
Date: 06-Feb-2026 15:06:45 Kumar Samal (Opposite Party No. 2-the Informant).
3. That, the dispute which led to the
registration of the aforesaid FIR was essentially
personal and private in nature, arising out of a
previous family grudge and certain
misunderstandings.
4. That, we the petitioners and informants
are belongs to one family, all dispute has been settled
by both the parties with the intervention of well-
wishers and local gentries, and taking into account
their existing family relationship, we, the Deponents,
have amicably resolved and settled all our disputes
outside the court.
5. That, the Deponent, Pratap Kumar Samal-
the Informant, confirms that he has no grievance
whatsoever against the Petitioners (Accused Persons)
at present and has taken a conscious decision not to
proceed further with the criminal case
6. That the Deponents affirm that the
settlement is genuine, voluntary, and free from any
coercion or undue influence
7. That the continuation of the criminal
proceedings would serve no useful purpose as the
matter has been amicably settled, and would only
result in the abuse of the process of law and
unnecessary harassment to the parties.
8. That the Deponent-the Informant
expresses his "No Objection" to the quashing of the
Digitally Signed FIR and the entire criminal proceedings arising there
Reason: Authentication from against the Petitioners."
Location: OHC
Date: 06-Feb-2026 15:06:45
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the dispute in question deserves to be put
to rest, as continuation of the criminal proceeding would serve no
useful purpose and is likely to culminate in a failure of
prosecution.
7. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed. The Binjharpur P.S.
Case No.35 of 2016 corresponding to G.R Case No.97 of 2016
pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Jajpur, is hereby
quashed.
8. The CRLMC is disposed of, accordingly.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
