Sagar Ranjan Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Sahid Nagar P.S. Case No.79 of 2017 corresponding to T.R. No.208 of 2017 came to be registered against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 451/294/323/506/34 of the IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, pending in the Court of learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar.

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

3. The allegation is that on 28.02.2017, when the informant was in his hostel room, the petitioner along with others entered into his room and scolded him in filthy language abusing his caste and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the F.I.R.

¶16

4. After the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed in the present case on 30.04.2017 for alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 451/294/323/506/34 of the IPC r/w Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act.

¶17

5. The learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, vide its order dated 17.05.2017, has taken the cognizance of the offences as mentioned above and issued the order of N.B.W. against one of the co-accused persons.

¶18

6. Before commencement of the trial, the parties have entered into a settlement. On the basis of the settlement terms, the present petition has been filed.

¶19

7. The opposite party No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 11.04.2025, inter alia , stating as under:

¶20

“2. That, the aforesaid FIR had given cause of action when the parties are prosecuting their studies and now all of them have left the University Premises and preparing for their future.

¶21

3. That, in the meantime the aforesaid issues have been resolved between the parties and the informant /deponent is not ready and willing to proceed with the criminal case.

¶22

4. That, in view of the above appropriate order may kindly be passed to drop the criminal proceeding in connection with Sahid Nagar P.S. Case No.79 of 2017 corresponding to T.R. No.208 of 2017 pending

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

in the court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar to secure ends of justice.”

¶25

8. The petitioners and the opposite party No.2 are present in the Court today. They are being represented by their respective counsel and being identified by them. They have also filed the photocopies of their respective Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record.

¶26

9. The opposite party No.2, who is present in person before this Court, on the query from the Court, submits that the petitioners are the class fellows and they were residing in the same hostel. Due to the misunderstanding and sudden provocation, he had filed the F.I.R. against the petitioners. However, they have now settled their dispute. They have become friends now. Therefore, he does not want to prosecute the petitioners anymore.

¶27

10. Moreover, all the petitioners are preparing for their Competitive Examination. Continuation of the present proceeding will mar their career. Hence, they submit that the proceeding initiated by the opposite party No.2 against the petitioner may be terminated. 11. Mrs. Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1-State submits that the parties have settled their dispute. They have also filed an affidavit before this Court in that regard. The allegation made by the informant against the accused petitioner are not much serious or

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

grievous in nature. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in quashing the present F.I.R.

¶30

12. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have settled their dispute and they have also filed the affidavit in that regard, I am inclined to allow the present petition. In the fact scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of trial is destined to be a futile exercise. The present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303; B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others , reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition deserves merit.

¶31

13. Taking into consideration the aforementioned judgments, the facts of the case and submissions made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Sahid Nagar P.S. Case No.79 of 2017 corresponding to T.R. No.208 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are quashed.

¶32

14. In the interest of guidance and preventive purposes, but not as punitive measure, I intend to require the petitioners to undertake the following

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

exercise:

¶35

A. All the petitioners shall tender unconditional and unqualified written apologies to the principal of the college and file those written apologies before this court within ten days.

¶36

B. The petitioners shall visit Jharpada Jail, Bhubaneswar within two weeks from today, compile a report regarding the hygiene maintained in the jail premises and suggest positive measures regarding the same. They must furnish their suggestions to the jail superintendent and obtain a certificate from him to be filed before this court within four weeks from today.

¶37

The aforementioned conditional order has been issued by this court to sound a note of caution to the petitioners to deter from further indulging them in any such act as alleged in this case and send the positive massage to boarding and days scholars students of the colleges not to indulge in such conduct as complained of. By visiting the jail premises, they need to realize the living condition of the prisoners in the jail, that experience will impel them to come out from the cocoon of their comfort to perceive the hard reality of life, and value human dignity and nudge into a positive direction and reform themselves into a good citizen.

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

15. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra)

Judge

Subhasis

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 18-Apr-2025 12:11:41

¶45

Page 6 of 6

Sagar Ranjan Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Ranjan Pradhan 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

Chakradhar Ghadei Vs State of Odisha

Acharya Agency, Cuttack Vs State of Odisha

Sujit Gudia Vs State of Odisha

Pabitra Mohan Pattanaik Vs State of Odisha

Rajendra Prasad Sathpathy Vs State of Odisha

Sangram Keshari Sahoo Vs State of Odisha