Papuni@Papu Kumar Behera@Saroj Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the Informants and learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶14

The present application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Sukinda P.S. Case No.43 of 2021, corresponding to C.T. Case No.32 of 2021, pending before the learned Grama Nyayalaya (GN)-cum-J.M.F.C., Sukinda. The above noted case was

¶15

Page 1 of 4.

¶16

registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 354, 506 & 34 of IPC.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that there was a rivalry between the group of the Petitioners and the Informant, as a result of which, cases were registered against both sides. He further contended that both sides have different political allegiances, therefore, they used to have different opinions which often led to quarrels between the two groups and ended in injury sustained by members of either side. In the present case he further submitted that although allegation has been made under Section 307 of IPC, however, the injury sustained by the injured is not grievous in nature. Therefore, no case under Section 307 of IPC is made out. So far as other offences are concerned, it was submitted that the offences are compoundable in nature except the offence under Section 354 of IPC. With regard to the allegation under Section 354 of IPC, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the same is a result of exaggeration of fact by the Informant and that no such occurrence had ever taken place.

¶18

In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the matter has been amicably resolved between both sides and that they are living peacefully in the locality. He further submitted that both sides have decided to bring an end to the dispute. Accordingly, it has been agreed upon by the parties that they shall not proceed further in the present criminal case. He further contended that the Informant has specifically agreed to not proceed further in this case and that he will have no objection in the event the criminal proceeding is quashed. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioners referred to the joint affidavit filed by both

¶19

Page 2 of 4.

¶20

sides after serving a copy thereof on learned counsel for the State. In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the further continuance of the present proceeding would be an abuse of process of law, therefore, the same should be quashed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Informant on the other hand supported the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. He further referred to the joint affidavit filed by both sides before this Court and contended that the matter has been amicably resolved and the parties are living peacefully in the locality. Moreover, it was contended that in the event the present proceeding is allowed to continue, then the bitterness between two groups would continue which may eventually lead to further disturbance in the locality. On such ground, learned counsel for the Informant contended that the Informant does not have any objection in the event the entire proceeding is quashed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court he had obtained instruction from the IIC of the Sukinda P.S. Although the IIC of Sukinda P.S. vide his report dated 15.09.2025 had confirmed the fact that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and have arrived at a compromise and that the joint affidavit filed before this Court is a genuine one, however, it has also been furnished that some of the Petitioners are having criminal antecedents. It has also been indicated in the said report that in the meantime the investigation has been concluded and the charge-sheet has already been filed indicating the name of the Petitioners. In view of the aforesaid instruction from the IIC of Sukinda P.S., learned counsel for the

¶23

Page 3 of 4.

¶24

State contended that he will have no objection in the event this Court passes any order in the interest of justice.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Informant, further taking note of the fact that the injuries were not grievous in nature and as such no case under Section 307 of IPC is made out and most of the offences alleged are compoundable in nature, further keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and the parties are living peacefully in the locality which is supported by the instruction from the IIC of Sukinda P.S., this Court, in the larger interest of justice and to bring peace and tranquility in the locality, is of the view that the pending criminal proceeding be brought to an end. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the present case falls within the reason of rarest of rare case and, accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in bringing an end to the pending criminal proceeding by quashing the FIR in Sukinda P.S. Case No.43 of 2021, corresponding to C.T. Case No.32 of 2021, pending before the learned Grama Nyayalaya (GN)-cum-J.M.F.C., Sukinda. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR is hereby quashed. As a result of which, all consequential proceedings stand closed.

¶26

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.

¶27

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶28

Judge

¶29

S.K. Rout

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 4 of 4. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 16-Oct-2025 10:19:35

Papuni@Papu Kumar Behera@Saroj v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Papuni@Papu Kumar Behera@Saroj 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Premalata Bhoi

State of Orissa Vs Gopeswari Naik

State of Orissa Vs Sachin Biswas

Biranchi Narayan Rath Vs Satya Narayan Behera

Samir Kumara Patra Vs State of Odisha

Padmaji Nalla Vs Umeswar Nalla