Orissa High Court
Mukesh Samal @ Sasmal vs State Of Odisha And Another ..... ... on 23 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.5497 of 2025
Mukesh Samal @ Sasmal ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Sanket Kanungo
-versus-
State Of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC
Mr. Nabadip Nayak
(O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
23.12.2025 Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Mr. Nabadip Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2, he files Vakalatnama in Court today, the same be kept on record.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State and Mr. Nabadip Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Informant-Opposite Party No.2. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.
4. Perused the joint affidavit filed by the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 before this Court which was sworn on 23.12.2025 before Page 1 of 7. the Oath Commissioner of this Court.
5. By filing the present application under Section 528 of the BNSS which corresponds to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of G.R. Case No. 1235 of 2017 which corresponds to Badachana P.S. Case No.192 of 2017 now pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Chandikhole which was registered for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 341/323/294/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that as per the FIR allegation the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 was assaulted by some of the accused persons including the present Petitioner. As per the FIR story, both the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 and other co-accused persons were student of the same college. During such time due to the Student Union Election, there existed a rivalry between the two groups as a result of which a scuffle took place between the two groups. It is alleged that the Petitioner group assaulted the informant as a result of which he has sustained some injury when other friends of the informant arrived at the spot, the Petitioner and other co-accused persons left the place by threatening the Informant. Accordingly, the FIR was registered at the Badachana police station and the investigation started.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in the meantime, the charge sheet has been filed since 29.12.2017 and cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 17.03.2018. He further submitted that despite cognizance having been taken, the trial has not progressed substantially. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that although the Page 2 of 7. Petitioner has passed out of the college and applied for a job, he is unable to join pursuant to the letter of appointment which is due to pendency of the present criminal case.
8. He further submitted that both the Petitioner and the Informant groups belong to the same college and that during their student carrier there was an ideological difference between the two groups due to the college student union election. He further contended that although the Petitioner has been named in the FIR, however, there is no specific allegation of commission of any overt act or assault by the Petitioner on the Informant-victim. He further clarified that there is also no allegation that the Petitioner had abused the Informant which would attract the offence under Section 294 of the IPC. So far as injuries are concerned, it is stated that those are all simple in nature.
9. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that since several years have passed in the meantime, both the Petitioner and the Informant who was student at the time of the occurrence and having been passed out of the college in the meanwhile are settled in their respective fields. There have decided to bring an end to the pending criminal cases. Accordingly, both sides have filed an affidavit before this Court today which was sworn before the Oath Commissioner of this Court. Referring to the said affidavit, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the matter has already been amicably resolved and that that the Parties particularly the Opposite Party No.2-Informant does not want to proceed further in the present criminal case, the entire criminal case be closed in the interest of justice. He further contended that the Informant is no more interested in pursuing the present criminal Page 3 of 7. litigation and of which the ultimate chances of conviction is very bleak. It was also contended that on a plain reading of the FIR as well as the materials collected in course of investigation, it could be found that there is no specific evidence supporting the allegation that the Petitioner participated in the alleged crime actively and that he had committed any overt act.
10. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. He further submitted that although the Petitioner and the Informant were students of the same college, there was a free fight between the two groups during the Student Union Election. However, taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the allegation and further in view of the materials collected in course of investigation, the entire criminal proceeding should not be quashed. He further contended that although an affidavit has been filed after serving a copy thereof on the learned counsel for the State by the Parties wherein they have specifically stated that they are no more interested to pursue the pending criminal litigation. However, taking into consideration, the seriousness of the gravity of the allegation, the affidavit could not be accepted and that the proceeding should not be quashed.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2- Informant on the other hand supported the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Informant referred to the affidavit filed in Court today and submitted before this Court that the matter has been amicably resolved between the two groups. He further submitted that the Opposite Party No.2-Informant has no specific grievance against the present Petitioner. It was also been submitted that since the matter Page 4 of 7. has been amicably resolved and that the parties are living peacefully in the locality the further continuance of the present proceeding would be an abuse of process of law. It was also contended that in the event, this Court quashed of the entire criminal proceeding, the Opposite Party No.2-Informant will have no objection to the same. On such ground, learned counsel for the Informant also supported the prayer of the Petitioner for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding.
12. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective Parties and on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking note of the nature and gravity of the allegation made in the FIR and the affidavit dated 23.12.2025 filed before this Court, this Court observed that the Petitioner and the Informant were students of the same college and they were active by involved in the College Union Election. Moreover, from a close analysis of the FIR, it appears that a scuffle took place between the two groups at the time of College Union Election and it has not been specifically alleged that the Petitioner assaulted the Informant. However, there is nothing on record which would reveal that the Informant has sustained any grievous injury. Accordingly, the FIR has been registered under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. On a plain reading of the FIR, this Court also found that although the Petitioner has been named in the FIR, however there is no allegation of commission of any specific overt act by the Petitioner. The FIR is also silent about the Petitioner hurting any abusive words at the Informant. Thus the offence under Section 294 of IPC is also not made out against the present Petitioner.
Page 5 of 7.13. Law is fairly well settled that while exercising inherent power to quash the entire criminal proceeding, this Court is required to confine to the allegation made in the FIR. In the event it is found that accepting the allegation made in the FIR at its face value, no case is made out against the accused-Petitioner, this Court is expected to exercise its inherent power to bring an end to the criminal proceeding by quashing of the FIR. On a careful analysis of the allegation made in such FIR, this Court is satisfied that no case under the alleged section is made in the FIR. This Court is also convinced that no case under the alleged section of IPC is made out against the present Petitioner even accepting the FIR at its face value. Moreover, the offences alleged, except the offence under Section 294 of IPC, are all compoundable in nature.
14. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual as well as the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that on the basis of the allegation made in the FIR, no case is made out against the present Petitioner although there are specific allegation against some of the co-accused persons. Further, keeping in view the fact that the matter has already been compromised and that the Opposite Party No.2-Informant does not want to proceed further against the present Petitioner, this Court is required to assess the prayer of the Petitioner, keeping in view, the aforesaid subsequent development. As has been observed hereinabove the offences are compoundable in nature except the offence under Section 294 of IPC. So far the offence under Section 294 of IPC is concerned, no case is made out under such section of IPC against the present Petitioner. Thus, the offence under Section 294 of IPC is hereby quashed. So far as the other offences are concerned, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to move an application Page 6 of 7. before the learned trial Court for compounding of such offences. In the event any such application is filed within ten days' from today, the learned trial Court shall do well to consider and dispose of such application by passing necessary order in accordance with law, keeping in view, the fact that the dispute has already been compromised between the Petitioner and the Informant-Opposite Party No.2.
15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 29-Dec-2025 13:55:50 Page 7 of 7.