Quashed

Suresh Kumar Bathual v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Nov 2023CRLMC/1259/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa, on common consent of parties, quashed G.R. Case No.1907 of 2016 arising from Tangi P.S. Case No.192 of 2016 involving offences under multiple IPC sections including cheating and robbery. The quashing was based on an affidavit confirming an amicable settlement and the application of the judgment of state of mp vs laxmi narayan.

What did the court decide?

The proceeding in respect of G.R. Case No.1907 of 2016 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C.(Rural), Cuttack is quashed and both the Criminal Misc. Cases are disposed of.

Suresh Kumar Bathual Vs State of Odisha — Quashing and FIR | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 1259 of 2019

¶3

Suresh Kumar Bathual …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. R. Roy, Advocate -versus…. State of Odisha and another Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC Mr. S.D. Ray, Advocate

¶5

CRLMC No. 1260 of 2019
Din Dayal Agarwal …. Petitioner
Mr. R. Roy, Advocate
-versus-
….
State of Odisha and another Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC
Mr. S.D. Ray, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
20.11.2023

¶6

Order No.

¶7

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

¶9

Since both the cases arise out of G.R. Case No.1907 of 2016 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C.(Rural), Cuttack, corresponding to Tangi P.S. Case No.192 of 2016 which was registered under Sections 380/420/468/471/467/34/120(B) of IPC in terms of the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

156(3) in 1CC Case No.161 of 2017 they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order on the consent of the Parties.

¶12

Both the Criminal Misc. Cases have been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceeding in the G.R. Case referred to herein above which was instituted at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2.

¶13

It is apt to note here that the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has filed an affidavit in each of the cases indicating that the matter has been settled inter se between the Parties and he does not want to proceed further in the case at hand. The relevant paragraph of the affidavit in CRLMC No.1259 of 2019 is extracted hereunder;

¶14

“2. That, during the pendency of the aforesaid complaint case, the friends and elders as well as the respectable people of the society intervened in the matter and all disputes and differences giving rise to the complaint case stands resolved between me and the accused persons.

¶15

That, in view of the amicable settlement between me and the accused persons in connection with the aforesaid complaint case, I have no further grievance against the accused Persons and have no reservation if the criminal proceeding emanating from the said complaint case is quashed by this Hon’ble Court.”

¶16

And, the paragraph-1 of the affidavit in CRLMC No.1260 of 2019 is quoted hereunder;

¶17

“1. That, I had filed a complaint case bearing 1CC Case No.161 of 2017 before learned J.M.F.C. (Rural) against Din Dayal Agarwal/ Petitioner in the aforesaid case and one Suresh Kumar Bathual for commission of offences under Sections 380/420/468/471/467/34/120(B) of IPC.”

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

It is apposite to state that paragraphs 2 & 3 of the affidavit filed in CRLMC No.1260 of 2019 is identical to such paragraph in CRLMC No.1259 of 2019 as extracted herein above.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Parties that since it is a dispute inter se between the Parties and there are no societal ramifications, in view of the compromise, the proceeding may be quashed.

¶21

On a conspectus of the materials on record and keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others, ( 2019) 5 SCC 688 , this Court is persuaded to hold that in view of the settlement between the Parties, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the proceeding to continue and interest of justice would be subserved if the same is quashed.

¶22

Accordingly, the proceeding in respect of G.R. Case No.1907 of 2016 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C.(Rural), Cuttack, arising out of Tangi P.S. Case No.192 of 2016 is quashed.

¶23

Both the Criminal Misc. Cases are disposed of. 10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per the rules.

¶24

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶25

Santoshi

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Nov-2023 12:46:10

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Suresh Kumar Bathual v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Bathual 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Binodini Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Manorama Dash @ Puja Vs State of Odisha

Pradip Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Din Dayal Agarwal Vs State of Odisha

Maguni C.Kamala Vs Shanntilata Kamala