Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Orissa High Court

Keshab Chandra Parida @ vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opposite ... on 12 January, 2024

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  CRLMC No. 1382 OF 2023

                 Keshab Chandra Parida @         ....                   Petitioner
                 Keshab Parida
                                                      Mrs. Sujata Jena, Advocate

                                           -versus-

             State of Odisha & another           ....            Opposite Parties
                                                         Mr. B. K. Ragada, AGA
                                                      Mr. B. P. Chhualising, Adv.
                                                          (For Opp. Party No.2)




                      CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

                                         ORDER

12.01.2024 Order No.

01. 1. Heard.

2. The petitioner is facing trial for allegedly committing the offences under Sections- 341, 324, 326, 307, 294 and 506 I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.649 of 2022 arising out of Kanas P.S. Case No.228 of 2022 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Kanas.

3. The ground of quashing is that the petitioner has entered into a settlement with the opposite party No.2, who is the informant in this case. The victim/injured is Khageswar Routray, who is the husband of the informant-opposite party No.2. They have placed on Page 1 of 4 record separate affidavits reiterating their stand regarding the settlement.

4. I have perused the documents placed on record. The allegation against the petitioner is that during a family and friends feast, there was quarrel. In a hit of rage, the petitioner attacked the victim Khageswar Routray, the husband of the opposite party No.2 and injured him in the belly. Therefore, the police has charge- sheeted the petitioner for various offences including the graver offence under Section-307 I.P.C. The parties are residing in the same locality and to buy peace and to maintain tranquility in the area, at the intervention of the gentries in the locality, they have entered into a settlement.

5. The petitioner, the informant and the husband of the informant being injured are present in the Court today. They are being identified by their respective counsels. They have also placed on record photocopies of their Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity.

6. Mrs. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in the case of Yogendra Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand, AIR 2014 SC 3055: 2014 Cri.L.J. 3935 and highlighted paragraph-4 of the said judgment to submit that although the case is under Section-307 I.P.C. apart from the other Page 2 of 4 offences, this Court, under the inherent jurisdiction of Section-482 Cr.P.C. can give indulgence and quash the criminal prosecution, as the parties have entered into a settlement.

Paragraph-4 of the judgment reads as under:-

"4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non- compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non- compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace."

7. Mr. Ragada, learned Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of the State and submits that indeed there is no legal impediment to quash the F.I.R. in view of the judgment in Yogendra Yadav (supra) cited by Mrs. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ragarda, learned Additional Government Advocate also submits that in the meanwhile, charge-sheet has already been submitted.

8. Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the contents of the separate affidavits filed by the parties to the proceeding, I am of the view that, if the petitioner is subject to rigorous of the trial, it would be a futile exercise. Therefore, it is a fit case to interfere at this stage and quash the entire proceeding.

9. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in G.R. Case No.649 of 2022 arising out of Kanas P.S. Case No.228 of 2022 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Kanas and the consequential proceeding thereof are set aside.

10. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Page 4 of 4