Sarada Prasad Mishra@Kalia Vs State of Odisha

2. At the instance of the opposite party no.2, the F.I.R., i.e., Mahanga P.S. Case No.117 of 2009 came to be registered against the accused persons under Sections 363/366/376/109/34 of the I.P.C. pending

¶24

in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Salipur.

¶25

3. Opposite party no.3 is the victim in the present case. The allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner no.1 had kidnapped opposite party no.3 with the help of other accused persons.

¶26

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party no.3 is now married petitioner no.1 Butu @ Samir Kumar Routray and they are blessed with two children.

¶27

5. In view of the fact that the main accused has already married the victim, the informant and the victim are not willing to proceed against the petitioners. All the accused persons being the petitioners in both the cases are present in Court today represented by their respective counsel and filed self attested photocopies of their respective Adhar Cards to establishment their identity. The opposite party no.2, who is the informant and brother of the opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.3 are also present in Court today along with their respective counsel and they have also filed their self attested copies Adhaar Cards to establishment their identity. The same are taken on record.

¶28

6. The opposite party nos.2 and 3 have filed their respective affidavits dated 08.04.2024 stating therein that in view of the development unfolded in the present case, they are not interested to proceed

¶29

against the petitioners any more.

¶30

7. Mr. Maharaj, learned counsel for the State submits that although the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature, however, in view of the fact that the main accused has already married the victim and the victim is a major. They are blessed with two children. In order to save the marriage of the victim, this Court may give indulgence in the instant case.

¶31

8. Taking into consideration the aforementioned fact, submission at bar and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, this case deserves merit. Relevant Paragraphs of the Gian Singh ( supra) reads as under:

¶32

“52. The question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code.

¶33

55. In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something

¶34

else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection.

¶35

58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens wellbeing of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial,

¶36

financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.

¶37

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature

¶38

and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim . In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement

¶39

and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶40

Therefore, subjecting the accused persons to trial shall be futile exercise, therefore, the F.I.R., i.e., Mahanga P.S. Case No.117 of 2009 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Salipur and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed.

¶41

7. Both the CRLMCs are accordingly disposed of.

¶42

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶43

amit

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 10-Apr-2024 09:34:16

Sarada Prasad Mishra@Kalia v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarada Prasad Mishra@Kalia v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Chandra Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Narasimhamurty Panigrahi Vs Saroj Kumar Panda

Anjan Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Jatia Meher Vs State

Sunil Kumar Routray Vs Uttarani Shoe Store

Padmabati Dash Vs Mukundadev Acharya