A cross-case FIR registered against the petitioners was quashed after both sides settled their dispute on the intervention of village gentries, mirroring the earlier quashing of the counterpart case. Parties filed affidavits confirming settlement; the court allowed the petition.
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.2026 of 2024
Sashi Malik & another
…. Petitioners Mr. Girish Chandra Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another
…. Opp. Parties Mr. S.K.Mishra ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order No.
ORDER
11.09.2024
1 . At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Jenapur P.S. Case No.45 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.352 of 2012 came to be registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 294/ 426/ 355/ 506/34 of the IPC pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 01.04.2012, while the wife of the complainant went to the nearest tube-well to wash her clothes, at that time, the petitioner No.1 came and asked the complainant that why she was washing clothes there. It is alleged that the complainant could not wash the
Page 1 of 5
clothes, as the said tube-well belongs to the petitioner No.1 and threw the clothes of the complainant on the road. Thereafter the petitioner No.1 abused the complainant in filthy languages. Hence, the F.I.R.
3. There was a cross-case filed by the petitioners against the opposite party No.2.
4. The opposite party No.2 had filed CRLMC No.723 of 2024 for quashing of the said F.I.R. Vide order dated 02.05.2024, this Court has quashed the F.I.R. registered against the opposite party No.2 at the instance of the petitioners. It is relevant to reproduce the order passed in that case.
“1. Heard.
2. At the instance of Opposite Party No.3, the
F.I.R. dated 16.04.2012 in Jenapur P.S. Case No.44 of 2012 under Sections 341, 294, 323, 354, 506 and 34 of I.P.C. came to be registered against the Petitioners.
3. By way of a cross F.I.R., the present Petitioners have also lodged an F.I.R. being Jenapur P.S. Case No.45 of 2012 against the Opposite Parties in the present case. The Petitioners have now settled their dispute with the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the Petitioners have filed the present petition seeking quashing of both the F.I.Rs.
4. The conjoint application for quashing of both the F.I.Rs. in the present proceeding cannot be entertained. Therefore, the present petition is only entertained for quashing of the F.I.R. being Jenapur P.S. Case No.44 of 2012.
5. Learned counsel for the respective parties submits that they would be preferring a separate petition seeking quashing of F.I.R. being Jenapur P.S. Case No.45 of 2012 on the ground of settlement.
Page 2 of 5
6. The Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.3 are present in the Court and being identified by their respective counsels. They have also filed the selfattested copies of their Aadhaar Cards before this Court to establish their identity, which are taken on record.
7. The Opposite Party No.3 has filed an affidavit dated 01.05.2024 before this Court inter alia stating that she has settled the dispute with the Petitioners and there was a cross case registered against her at the instance of the Petitioners. They have settled both the disputes on the intervention of the village gentries and wellwishers. Therefore, she is not willing to prosecute the present Petitioners in the instant F.I.R. namely Jenapur P.S. Case No.44 of 2012.
8. Mr. Roul, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that since the parties have settled their inter-se dispute and the F.I.R. was registered way back in the year 2012, there is no legal impediment in quashing the F.I.R.
9. Taking into consideration that the parties have settled their dispute and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi & others vs. State of Haryana & another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, I am of the considered view that subjecting the Petitioners to trial would be a futile exercise. Therefore, the petition deserves merit. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in C.T. Special Case No.349 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No.351 of 2012 arising out of Jenapur P.S. Case No.44 of 2012 (J.M.F.C., Chandikhole) now pending in the Court of the learned ADJ-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the Petitioners are quashed.
10. Liberty is granted to the Petitioners to file separate petition for quashing of the F.I.R. being Jenapur P.S. Case No.45 of 2012.
11. The CRLMC is disposed of.”
Page 3 of 5
5. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Jenapur P.S. Case No.45 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.352 of 2012 has been registered against the petitioners. Now, the parties have settled their dispute. They have filed an affidavit dated 11.09.2024, inter alia , stating that on the intervention of the village gentries, they have settled the dispute and the opposite party No.2 is not interested to prosecute the petitioners any more. The affidavit is taken on record.
6. The petitioners and the opposite party No.2 are present in the Court today. They are being represented by their respective counsels and identified by them. They have filed the photocopies of their self-attested Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record.
7. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have settled their dispute and the cross-cases has been quashed vide order dated 02.05.2024, while allowing CRLMC No.723 of 2024, I am inclined to allow the present petition.
8. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Jenapur P.S. Case No.45 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.352 of 2012 pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur and the consequential proceeding arising therefrom are
Page 4 of 5
quashed on the ground of settlement.
9. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra) Judge
Subhasis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 12-Sep-2024 11:05:50
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an FIR and consequential criminal proceedings arising out of a cross-case should be quashed following settlement between the parties?
5 provisions across 1 enactments
Sashi Malik
Sashi Malik's co-petitioner (another)
State of Odisha
Opposite Party No.2
Sibo Sankar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
