Akshaya Kumar Chand vs State Of Odisha & Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 1131 Ori

Orissa High Court

Akshaya Kumar Chand vs State Of Odisha & Anr on 9 February, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                      CRLA No.799 of 2025

                                     Akshaya Kumar Chand
                                     & Anr.                        ....              Appellant(s)

                                                                          Mr. P.K. Mishra, Adv.
                                                            -versus-
                                     State of Odisha & Anr.      ....              Respondent(s)

                                                              Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA (for O.P. No.1)

                                                             Mr. J.K. Panda, Adv. (for O.P. No.2)

                                            CORAM:
                                            HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                                                 ORDER

Order No. 09.02.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In filing the CRLA, the Appellants have challenged the

order of cognizance dated 10.04.2025 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri for the

offence under Sections 294/500/506/507 of the I.P.C., Section

66(C) of the I.T. Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the

S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 in Special G.R. Case No.240 of

2023 corresponding to Chitrakonda P.S. Case No.228 of

Date: 10-Feb-2026 20:18:21 2023.

3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

4. The brief facts of the case are that, the Respondent No.2

lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Chitrakonda Police

Station on 02.12.2023, alleging therein that on 13.11.2023,

both the Appellants had committed robbery from one liquor

merchant, for which a case was registered at Chitrakonda

Police Station. It was also alleged in the said F.I.R. that

Appellant No.1, suspecting the publication of said news by

the Respondent No.2, being a reporter of Pragatibadi, had

threatened him over phone. It was further alleged that the

Appellant No.1 abused Respondent No.2 over the phone by

uttering his caste. Hence, the present case.

5. Based on the F.I.R., the I.I.C., Chitrakonda P.S. registered

the case and after completion of investigation, the I.O.

submitted the charge sheet against the Appellants for the

offence under Sections 294/500/506/507 of the I.P.C., Section

66(C) of the I.T. Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the

S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989. Upon receipt of the charge sheet,

the learned trial Court took cognizance vide order dated

10.04.2025, which is impugned herein.

6. Today, the Appellants as well as Respondent No.2 are

present in person before this Court along with their

respective identity proof. They have also filed a joint

affidavit dated 09.02.2026, inter alia, stating as follows:

"1. That, the deponents are the informant/victim/ Respondent No.2 and Appellants respectively in this case.

2. That, the Appellants filed this Criminal Appeal with prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 10.04.2025.

3. That the informant/victim/Respondent No.2 namely Bholanath Mallick does not want to contest the case.

4. That we are filing this affidavit without being biased or influenced by any one and with our free will and if the proceeding will continue our professional carrier may be affected.

5. That the facts stated above are true to the best of our knowledge and belief."

The said affidavit dated 09.02.2026 is taken on record.

7. In view of the joint affidavit, learned counsel for the

Appellants submits that the parties have amicably settled

their dispute and they do not wish to proceed further with

the criminal case and, accordingly, prays for quashing the

proceedings.

8. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel

for Respondent No.2 fairly submit that the parties have

arrived at an amicable settlement and have jointly filed the

affidavit before this Court.

9. In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another1,

and two other reported cases of this Court in Lokanath @

Anadi Sethi and four others v. State of Orissa and four

others2, and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and another -

v.- State of Orissa and Another3, wherein the Supreme

Court as well as this Court are of the opinion that no useful

purpose will be served in allowing such proceedings to

(2012) 10 SCC 303

2014 (II) OLR 29

2014 (II) OLR 452

continue the criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case as it

will only lead to abuse the process of law.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

particularly considering the amicable settlement arrived at

between the Appellants and Respondent No.2 and taking

into account the joint affidavit filed before this Court, this

Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the

present criminal proceeding would not serve the interest of

justice and would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

Accordingly, invoking the inherent powers under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS), this

Court is inclined to allow the prayer made by the

Appellants.

11. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.04.2025

taking cognizance of the offences is hereby quashed and the

entire criminal proceeding in Special G.R. Case No.240 of

2023 (arising out of Chitrakonda P.S. Case No.228 dated

02.12.2023), pending before the learned Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge, Malkangiri, stands quashed.

12. Accordingly, this CRLA is disposed of.

13. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

14. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

15. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

16. A copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial

Court for information.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

Sipun