Manee @ Manas Dalei Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Informant, who is present in Court although no notice was issued to the Opposite Parties as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as documents annexed thereto.

¶17

By filing the present application under Section 528 of BNSS, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceeding arising out of Nandankanan P.S. Case No.57 of 2016 which corresponds to G.R. Case No.1118 of 2016 pending in the file of J.M.F.C.(O), Bhubaneswar. The above noted case was instituted at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2-

¶18

Page 1 of 3.

¶19

Informant for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 307, 294, 354, 506, 34 of IPC.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that due to a misunderstanding between the Petitioners and the Informant, the present criminal case has been instituted. He further submitted that during the pendency of the present criminal case, the matter has been compromised between the two groups. In support of such compromise, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the compromised deed dated 08.04.2025 under Annexure-3 to the application.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Informant on the other hand contended that the dispute has been amicably settled between the two groups and that they have decided live peacefully in the locality. He further contended that the Informant does not want to proceed further in the present criminal case. On such ground, learned counsel for the Informant supported the prayer of the Petitioners for quashing of the entire criminal case.

¶22

On perusal of the compromise deed, it appears that the same was executed before the Notary Public on 08.04.2025 by both sides. It further appears that the matter has been amicably settled subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in such compromise deed. Moreover, such compromise is supported by learned counsels appearing from both sides. It is also submitted by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature, therefore, the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that

¶24

Page 2 of 3.

¶25

since the matter has been compromised and that the Informant does not want to proceed further in the present criminal case, he will have no objection in the event this Court disposes of the matter by passing an appropriate order.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as documents on record, this Court is of the view that the compromise deed under Annexure-3 is supported by the counsels appearing for both sides. Moreover, it appears that the parties have no quarrel with regard to the fact that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature, therefore, admittedly no case under Section 307 of IPC is made out. Accordingly, the offence under Section 307 of IPC is hereby quashed. Further, with regard to the other offences, this Court is of the view that those offences are all compoundable in nature. In such view of the matter, the parties are directed to approach the learned trial Court by filing a petition under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for compounding of the offences within a period of two weeks along with all supported documents. In such eventuality, the learned trial Court shall dispose of such application, keeping in view the fact that the matter has already been compromised by the parties within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such application.

¶27

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

¶28

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)

¶29

Judge

¶30

S.K. Rout

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Page 3 of 3. Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 25-Jul-2025 16:12:19

Manee @ Manas Dalei v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manee @ Manas Dalei 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

Pradeep Kumar Rath Vs State of Odisha

Susanta Behera Vs State of Odisha

Rita Priyadarsini Mohanaty Vs State of Odisha

Sai Ranjan Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Shiba Prasad Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Krishna Ballav Ray Vs Cesu