The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings and the cognizance order based on a compromise. The Single Judge held that the offences involved were heinous and triable by Sessions Court under Section 436 IPC, citing Narinder Singh, and refused to quash the cognizance.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3377 of 2019
Jagannath Acharya
…. Petitioner
-versus-
…. Amulya Pradhan Opposite Party
CORAM: JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
Order No.
ORDER 08.02.2022
3 . This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner to quash the criminal proceeding as well as the impugned order taking cognizance under Sections 147/294/451/379/380/427/435/436/149 IPC in connection with ICC Case No.31 of 2019 pending in the court of J.M.F.C., Pattamundai on the ground of compromise made between the parties.
4 . Considering the facts and the submissions made, nature of accusation appearing against the Petitioner, especially in a
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
case under Section 436 IPC, which is triable by the Court of Sessions and the same is heinous and serious in nature and in view of the decision of the apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another , reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, this Court is not inclined to quash the cognizance on the ground of compromise made between the
parties.
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance based on a compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶17
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagannath Acharya
Amulya Pradhan
S. Pujahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
