Allowed

Jyoti Prasad Ransingh @ Jyoti Ranjan Ransingh v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Dec 2021CRLMC/95/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

One Judge of the High Court of Odisha quashed an FIR and continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner following a compromise affidavit filed by the complainant indicating full settlement and absence of grievance.

What did the court decide?

1. Proceedings in Begunia P.S. Case No. 92 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 580 of 2020 pending in the file of S.D.J.M., Khurda is hereby quashed.

Jyoti Prasad Ransingh @ Jyoti Ranjan Ransingh Vs State… — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 95 of 2021

¶3

Jyoti Prasad Ransingh @ Jyoti …. Ranjan Ransingh

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. A. Pattanaik, Advocate

¶6

-Versus -

¶7

State of Odisha & Anr.

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. P.K. Maharaj, Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate (For opposite party no.2)

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶11

ORDER_ 20.12. 2021

¶12

Order No.

¶13

¶14

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard Mr. A. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Maharaj, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr.A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. Also heard Jyoti Prasad Ransinghpetitioner and Jamuna Behera-opposite party no.2, who have appeared in person.

¶16

The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the FIR vide Begunia P.S. Case No.92 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 580 of 2020 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda.

¶17

The facts of the case are that the informant, namely, Jamuna Behera aged about 19 years, daughter of Sanatan

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Behera made an allegation on 14.05.2020 that the present petitioner took obscene photographs of her by using his mobile phone and posted the photographs same on the internet and also sent the same mobiles of others by using fake I.D. of Face Book and also threatened to kill her, abused her in obscene language and demanded cash of Rs.5 lakhs. The aforesaid written report of the informant was registered as Begunia P.S. Case No. 92 of 2020.

¶21

A compromise affidavit has been filed being sworn by the opposite party no.2- Jamuna Behera stating that the matter has been amicably settled and that she has decided not to proceed further in the present case as well as in the criminal case pending against the petitioner, as the matter has already been settled between them.

¶22

On the above basis, it is submitted that as the proceeding had been initiated due to misunderstanding and past enmity in college election, 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.

¶23

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 petitioner in this case. The matter has been amicably settled and compromised. The opposite party no.2 being present, on being asked fully supported the contents of the affidavit.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

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.

¶27

This Court is therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner. The proceedings in Begunia P.S. Case No. 92 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 580 of 2020 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda is hereby quashed

¶28

Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.

¶29

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

¶30

( Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge

¶31

B.C. Tudu

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Jyoti Prasad Ransingh @ Jyoti Ranjan Ransingh v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Prasad Ransingh @ Jyoti Ranjan Ransingh 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

Satyabrata Dash Vs Pabitra Bhatta

Nrusingha Charan Behura Vs Tapan Ku.Mohanty

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Adarmani Das

Pramod Ku.Swain Vs State

Binod Muduli Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Ch Satpathy Vs State