Petitioners filed a CRLMC to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the dispute was amicably settled. The court accepted the compromise, finding chances of conviction remote, and quashed the cognizance order and pending proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
Quashed the impugned order of cognizance and the proceeding in G.R. Case No.383 of 2018.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRLMC NO.1204 OF 2019
04 05.09.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, so also the learned counsel for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 18.06.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack in G.R.Case No.383 of 2018 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 341/294/ 307/506/34 of I.P.C. along with a prayer to quash the entire prosecution.
3. On being asked to the opposite party no.2, he stated that at the intervention of well-wishers the dispute between the present petitioners has already been amicably settled outside the Court with a view to end the litigations. A report has been filed by the I.I.C., Badambadi P.S., indicating therein that the dispute has already been settled/ compromised between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2-Badal Kumar Swain in presence of their well-wishers without any threat and coercion. The same be kept on record.
4. Relying on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others vrs. State of Punjab and another , reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties being neighbour to each other and they having already amicably settled their disputes outside the Court, the present CRLMC should be allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance and also the proceeding in G.R.Case No. 383 of 2018 pending in the court of the S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the State does not oppose such submissions and submits that pursuant to the direction of this Court he has obtained a report from the I.I.C.,
2
Badambadi Police Station wherein he stated that the dispute between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 has been compromised and they all are living peacefully in the same locality.
6. I have gone through the F.I.R., injury report and other papers available on record. Cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 341/294/307/506/34 of I.P.C. upon the charge-sheet filed by the Police against the present petitioners pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged by the present opposite party no.2. Needless to mention that some of the aforesaid offences are not compoundable.
7. In the case of Narinder Singh and others vrs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, In the case of the Apex Court in paragraph-35 held as follows:-
“35. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., “respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to
3
who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly.”
8. Reverting to the case in hand, parties having amicably settled their disputes outside the Court with a view to restore their family peace and harmonious relationship, the chance of conviction appears to be remote. Hence, continuance of the criminal proceeding would be a seer abuse of the process of the Court. In the circumstances, the compromise is accepted and the impugned order of cognizance as well as the proceeding in G.R. Case No.383 of 2018 on the file of the S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack is hereby quashed.
9. This CRLMC is accordingly allowed.
……………………
lnb
4
lnb
lnb
5
p
6
7
lnb
8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed given the settlement of the dispute between the parties.
Whether the impugned order of cognizance and pending proceeding should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh and others vrs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶5
Narinder Singh and others vrs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Opposite party no.2-Badal Kumar Swain
State
lnb
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
