[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sudhansubala Khatua & vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 30 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 3030 of 2025
Sudhansubala Khatua & .... Petitioner(s)
Anr. Mr. Jajati Keshari Khuntia,
Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Sonak Misrha, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
30.01.2026
Order No.
04.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash
the G.R Case No.89 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned
JMFC-I (Cog Taking), Cuttack.
3. The brief facts of the case, as alleged in the FIR, are that one
Sk. Maidul Islam had lodged written report before the
Markatnagar PS with an allegation that he was working as
plywood carpenter for the last 14 days in the house of
Sudhansubala Khatua at CDA, Sector-9. When he demanded
money towards his work, suddenly, Sudhansubala Khatua abused
him in slang languages. At that time, Kamal Lochan Samal came
and both of them started beating him with a stick and dragged him
inside the house. Thereafter, the informant escaped from their
clutches and lodged the FIR before the Police Station with a prayer
to take action against the accused persons named in the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to
misunderstanding between the parties, the FIR was lodged.
However, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties
in the meantime. The Petitioner have paid the entire amount to the
Opposite Party No.2. Although the Petitioners and Opposite Party
No. 2 have submitted the deed of compromise before the IIC
Markagatnaar to close the matter, but, surprisingly he submitted
the charge sheet on 12.03.2024 against the present petitioners for
commission of offence under Section 342/294/323/506/34 of IPC.
The Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2 have filed a joint
affidavit in Court today, which is taken on record.
5. Perused the joint affidavit filed by the parties. The relevant
contents thereof are extracted hereunder: --
"1. That the deponent is the petitioner No.1
and accused No.1 in the above mentioned case and
have been duly authorized to swear this affidavit on
behalf of accused No.2. The deponent No.2 is the
Opp. Party No.2 as informant in this case.
2. That the petitioners have been arrayed as
accused persons and the deponent No.2 is the opp.
Party No.2 (complainant) in connection with
Markatnagar Police has registered as Markatnagar
PS Case No.13 of 2024 for commission of offence u/s
342/294/323/506/34 of IPC corresponding to GR
Case No.89 of 2024 pending in the court of the
Learned JMFC-I (Cog Taking) Cuttack.
3. That, during pendency of the criminal
proceeding, the matter has already been settled
amicable at the intervention of the local gentries. The
opp. Party No.2 has no further grievance against the
petitioners and resolved the issue for all time times to
come. In view of the above, both parties do not want
to proceed with the case and prayed for punishment
of the said GR Case No.89 of 2024 pending in the
court of the Learned JMFC-I(Cog Taking), Cuttack
for the interest of justice.
4. That, the facts stated above are true to the
best of our knowledge and belief."
6. Having perused the joint affidavit filed by the parties, this
Court is of the view that the scope and ambit of the inherent
powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is well settled. Such
power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only
to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of
Court. At the same time, it is equally settled that the High Court, in
appropriate cases, is not powerless to quash criminal proceedings
even in respect of non-compoundable offences, if the facts and
circumstances so warrant and if continuation of the proceedings
would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
7. This Court is conscious of the fact that quashing of criminal
proceedings should not be permitted to defeat the object of special
statutes. However, the peculiar facts of the present case, coupled
with the unequivocal stand of the victim-informant and the
subsequent developments, persuade this Court to hold that the
ends of justice would be better served by putting an end to the
criminal proceeding rather than allowing it to continue
mechanically.
8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner and upon careful perusal of the joint affidavit
filed by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. In the
circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceeding at this stage
would serve no useful or meaningful purpose and would only
result in unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings and
avoidable burden on the docket of the Court.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the CRLMC stands
allowed. Consequently, G.R Case No.89 of 2024 pending in the
Court of the learned JMFC-I (Cog Taking), Cuttack, is hereby
quashed.
10. The CRLMC is disposed of, accordingly.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
