Quashed

Hazi Khan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Nov 2021CRLMC/669/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings filed under an FIR alleging abuse and assault. The Court relied on a compromise affidavit filed by the informant stating the dispute was amicably settled and no further continuation of proceedings was desired.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1598 of 2016 arising out of Cantonment P.S. Case No.82 of 2015 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack are hereby quashed.

Hazi Khan Vs State of Odisha — Quashing and FIR | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 669 of 2020

¶3

Hazi Khan & Ors.

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. Jagannath Kamila, Advocate

¶6

-Versus -

¶7

State of Odisha & Anr.

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Ms. Sanjibani Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel. Mr. D. Das, Advocate (for O.P. No.2)

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶12

ORDER_ 09.11.2021

¶13

Order No.

¶14

¶15

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

Heard Mr. J. Kamila, learned counsel for the

¶17

petitioners, Ms. Sanjibani Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Also heard Amreen Zafaropposite Party No.2, who has appeared through virtual mode. 3. The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the opposite party no.2 with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1598 of 2016 arising out of Cantonment P.S. Case No.82 of 2015 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack.

¶18

The facts of the case are that the present opposite party No.2 lodged an F.I.R. before the Cantonment P.S. alleging that while she was going to a family dinner with her sister, near power house, Cantonment Road, the petitioner no.1 abused her in filthy language and tore her clothes and pulled

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

her down and petitioner no.2, who is his wife, pressed her neck, due to which she shouted loudly. Further, petitioner no.1 assaulted her with a sharp knife and when the local people gathered, he fled away from the spot threatening her with dire consequences. Subsequently, on 9^th July, 2016, the informant’s father received a call on his mobile from an unknown person asking him to compromise the case as otherwise he and his family members would be killed.

¶22

It is submitted that subsequently, the dispute between the parties was settled amicably. A compromise affidavit has been filed being sworn by the opposite party no.2- Amreen Zafar stating that she had married the brother of petitioner no.2 and there was misunderstanding and family dispute between them but in the meantime, the matter has been settled and she has decided not to proceed further in the case. 6. On the above basis, it is submitted that as the proceeding had been initiated due to misunderstanding and family dispute 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. 7. A perusal of the compromise affidavit filed by the informant-opposite party no.2 reveals that she does not want to proceed in the case further. She has also no grievance against the petitioners in this case. The matter has been amicably settled and compromised. The opposite party no.2 being present through virtual mode on being asked fully supported the contents of the affidavit.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

Considering the submissions made as noted above and the compromise affidavit filed by the 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.

¶26

This Court is therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners. The proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1598 of 2016 arising out of Cantonment P.S. Case No.82 of 2015 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack is hereby quashed

¶27

Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.

¶28

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶29

( Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge

¶30

A.K. Rana

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Hazi Khan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazi Khan 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

Rupeli Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Atala Kumar Das @ Atal Das Vs State of Odisha

Gopinath Bhatra Vs State of Odisha

Gulam Mustafa Khan Vs State of Odisha

Kamal Lochan Jena Vs State of Odisha

Ashish Kumar Mallik Vs State of Odisha