Satura @ Satrughana Majhi Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2300 of 2024

¶2

Satura @ Satrughana Majhi and others …. Petitioners In person

¶3

-versus-

¶4

State of Odisha and another

¶5

…. State of Odisha and another Opposite Parties Mr. Tej Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. Narasingh Baral, Advocate for O.P. No.2 Mrs. Jayanti Mansingh, Opposite Party No.2 (In person)

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Order No.

03.

ORDER

08.03.2025

This case is taken up in the 1^st National Lok Adalat, 2025 through Hybrid mode.

¶13

Petitioner No.1-Satura @ Satrughana Majhi and Opposite Party No.2 – Jayanti Mansingh (Informant in Ranpur P.S. Case No.59(8) dated 09.03.2014) along with her advocate – Mr. Narasingh Baral are present before this National Lok Adalat.

¶14

A memo signed by the petitioner No.1 and the opposite party No.2 duly identified by learned Advocate Sri Narasingh Baral is filed in this Lok-Adalat enclosing photocopies of the affidavit filed in this CRLMC by opposite party No.2 and the mutual agreement entered into between petitioner No.2-Chandra Sekhar Majhi and opposite party No.2-Jayanti Mansingh. The documents are taken on record. Photocopies of Aadhaar Card of both the petitioner No.1 and opposite party No.2, being identified by Mr. Narasingh Baral,

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 are also kept on record.

¶17

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.59 of 2014, arising out of Ranapur P.S. Case No.59(8) dated 09.03.2014, which is registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 379, 325, 323, 436, 452 and 506 read with Section 149 of I.P.C., stated to be pending in the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum - J.M.F.C., Ranapur.

¶18

On being asked, petitioner No.1-Satura @ Satrughana Majhi and Opposite Party No.2-Informant – Jayanti Mansingh in presence of Mr. Narasingh Baral, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 and Mr. Tej Kumar, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for opposite party No.1-State, asserted that at the intervention of well-wishers, the dispute between the present petitioners and opposite party No.2-Jayanti Mansingh (complainant) has already been amicably settled outside the Court with a view to end the litigations and in this regard, a mutual agreement has also entered into between the parties, photocopy of which has been filed along with the aforesaid memo. An affidavit dated 09.01.2025 sworn to by the complainant-Jayanti Mansingh has also been filed by opposite party No.2 indicating therein that she does not want to proceed in the present case any further as she and the petitioners are living peacefully in their village.

¶19

Page 2 of 6

¶20

It has been affirmed in paragraphs-4, 5 and 6 of the said affidavit sworn to by opposite party No.2 as follows:-

¶21

“*** *** ***

¶22

4. That, as we are living peacefully in our village, I don’t want to proceed in the present case vide G.R. Case No.59 of 2014, pending before the Learned Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D)-Cum- J.M.F.C, Ranpur, Dist. Nayagarh, corresponding to Ranpur PS Case No.59 (8) of dated 09.03.2014 for the offences U/s. 147/148/341/379/235/232/436/452/506/149 of IPC.

¶23

5. That, if the case continues, then this will warrant and inimical condition in our village and the entire peace will be extinguished which will lead to a poisonous atmospheres in the entire village.

¶24

6. That, in the interest of justice public at large this G.R. Case No.59 of 2014, pending before the Learned Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D)-Cum- J.M.F.C, Ranpur, Dist. Nayagarh, corresponding to Ranpur PS Case No.59(8) of dated 09.03.2014 for the offences U/s. 147/148/341/379/235/232/436/452/506/149 of IPC may be quashed against the present Accused persons/petitioners.”

¶25

The parties, residing as neighbours, have already amicably settled their disputes outside the Court, the criminal prosecution in G.R. Case No.59 of 2014 pending in the file of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum -J.M.F.C., Ranpur need not be kept alive in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vrs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 .

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1-State does not oppose such position of law and submitted that opposite party No.2 (complainant herself who is present in this Lok Adalat)

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

in her affidavit has clearly confirmed that she does not want to proceed with the case as she and the petitioners are living peacefully in their village.

¶29

I have gone through the F.I.R., Charge-sheet and other papers available on record. Charge-sheet has filed for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 379, 325, 323, 436, 452, 506 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. Needless to mention that some of the aforesaid offences are not compoundable.

¶30

In the case of Narinder Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph-33 held as follows:-

¶31

“ 33. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., “respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly. ”

¶34

In the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vrs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 38 , it has been held as follows:-

¶35

“ 5. In light of the amicable settlement and the complainant's unequivocal consent, as evidenced by the Interlocutory Application, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the present M.A. While the offense under Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 , the exceptional circumstances of this case, including the voluntary settlement between the parties, warrant the exercise of this Court’s inherent powers to give effect to the compromise.”

¶36

Reverting to the case in hand, parties having amicably settled their disputes outside the Court with a view to restore their family peace and harmonious relationship, the chance of conviction appears to be remote. Hence, continuance of the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.59 of 2014, arising out of Ranapur P.S. Case No.59(8) dated 09.03.2014 against the petitioners would be a seer abuse of the process of the Court. In the circumstances, the compromise is accepted and the criminal prosecution in G.R. Case No.59 of 2014, arising out of Ranapur P.S. Case No.59(8) dated 09.03.2014, pending in the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge

¶37

Page 5 of 6

¶38

(Junior Division)- cum -JMFC, Ranpur, District-Nayagarh against the petitioners is hereby quashed.

¶39

This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of being allowed.

¶40

Copy of this Order be communicated to the Court concerned forthwith.

¶41

(M.S. Raman, J.) 1^st National Lok Adalat

¶42

Aswin/MRS/Suchitra

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTA CK Date: 12-Mar-2025 11:42:31

¶45

Page 6 of 6

Satura @ Satrughana Majhi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satura @ Satrughana Majhi 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

Satyanarayan Panda Vs Cgm,State Bank of India

Bikash Ranjan Mohanty Vs Sanjay Kumar Singh, IAS

Surendra Kumar Sahoo Vs Sanjay Kumar Singh, IAS

Prasanna Kumar Khuntia Vs Santosh Kumar Swain

Charampa Pacs (Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society), Bhadrak Vs State of Odisha

Maa Subhalaxmi Shg, Subarnapur Vs State of Odisha