Quashed

Narendra Kumar Roul v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Nov 2021CRLMC/1926/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, in CRLMC No.1926 of 2021, allowed the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a joint affidavit establishing an amicable settlement between the petitioner and the informant, rendering further trials futile.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1680 of 2021 corresponding to Kaniha P.S. Case No.236 of 2021 pending before the S.D.J.M., Talcher, were quashed and the application was disposed of.

Narendra Kumar Roul Vs State of Odisha — Quashing and FIR | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 1926 of 2021

¶3

Narendra Kumar Roul

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S.K. Dwibedi, Advocate

¶6

-Versus -

¶7

State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. P. Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel. Mr. S. Hota, Advocate (for O.P. No.2)

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER_

12.11.2021

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard Mr. S.K. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the

¶16

petitioner, Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. S. Hota, learned counsel for opposite party no.2-informant. Also heard Narendra Kumar Raul-petitioner and Kasturi Pradhan-opposite Party No.2, who have appeared in person.

¶17

The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1680 of 2021 corresponding to Kaniha P.S. Case No.236 of 2021 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Talcher.

¶18

The facts of the case are that the present opposite party no.2-informant lodged an F.I.R. on 13.09.2021 before the Kaniha P.S. alleging that on the previous night at about 11.00 p.m. in absence of her husband while she was sleeping in her

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

room she felt that someone had embraced her and when she switched on the light, she found the petitioner. When she shouted, the petitioner fled away from the spot leaving his car bearing registration no. OD-02-H-3007 and while leaving, he threatened to kill her as well as her family members by hurling bombs. Therefore, she filed the FIR against the petitioner.

¶22

A joint affidavit has been filed being sworn by both the petitioner -Narendra Kumar Raul and opposite party no.2Kasturi Pradhan stating that during course of investigation due to intervention of the village gentries, well wishers and relatives, the dispute between them has been amicably settled and the opposite party no.2 is no more interested to proceed with the case and they are leading a cordial relationship without any difficulties.

¶23

On the above basis, it is submitted that as the proceeding had been initiated due to misunderstanding, but has since been resolved amicably as also the fact that the concerned parties do not wish to continue with the proceeding, the same may be quashed.

¶24

A perusal of the joint affidavit filed by the petitioner and informant-opposite party no.2 reveals that she does not want to proceed in the case further. She has also no grievance against the petitioner in this case. The opposite party no.2 being asked, fully supported the contents of the affidavit filed by her stating that the dispute between her and the petitioner has been settled amicably and that she does not wish to

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

proceed further in the case.

¶28

Considering the submissions made as noted above and the joint affidavit filed by the petitioner and opposite party no.2, it is evident that the dispute between them has been amicably settled. Under such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, especially when the chance of conviction in the said case is bleak.

¶29

This Court is therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners. The proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1680 of 2021 arising out of Kaniha P.S. Case No.236 of 2021 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Talcher is hereby quashed

¶30

Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.

¶31

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on

¶32

proper application.

¶33

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶34

A.K. Rana

¶35

Page 3 of 3

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Narendra Kumar Roul v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Roul v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasmita Das Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Amiya Kumar Rath Vs State of Odisha

Susant Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Jitu Naik Vs State of Odisha

Rakesh Pujari@Sanu Vs State of Odisha

Bijayalaxmi Rana Vs State of Odisha