Allowed¶27

Subash Chandra Sahoo @ Subash Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 Nov 2025CRLMC/2304/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceeding on amicable settlement; inherent power under Section 528 BNSS; BNS 2023 Sections 140, 303(2), 296, 109, 351(2), 3(5); SC and ST Act 1989 Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va); compoundable offences; simple injuries; joint affidavit before Oath Commissioner; I.I.C. local inquiry dated 12.11.2025; Begunia P.S. Case No.117 of 2025; T.R. Case No.33 of 2025; Special Judge Khurda; CRLMC No.2304 of 2025; Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Begunia P.S. Case No.117 of 2025 corresponding to T.R. Case No.33 of 2025 ¶27

Subash Chandra Sahoo @ Subash Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Begunia P.S. Case No.117 of 2025 corresponding to T.R. Case No.33 of 2025

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Begunia P.S. Case No.117 of 2025 (T.R. Case No.33 of 2025), pending before the Special Judge under the SC & ST (P.A) Act, Khurda, should be quashed in exercise of the inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS in view of the amicable settlement between the parties

¶16

Court's answer

The parties have settled the dispute amicably, and this fact has been verified by the I.I.C. of the concerned police station and found to be correct

¶26

Ratio / Principle

No case under Section 109 of BNS is made out against the present Petitioners

¶26

Key takeaways

Most of the other offences are compoundable in nature, and given the amicable resolution and the parties residing peacefully in the locality, the case is fit for exercise of the Court's inherent power to advance the cause of justiceratio¶26
The criminal proceeding arising out of Begunia P.S. Case No.117 of 2025, corresponding to T.R. Case No.33 of 2025, is hereby quashedratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLMC allowed: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, exercising inherent power under Section 528 BNSS, quashes the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Begunia P.S. Case No.117 of 2025 (T.R. Case No.33 of 2025) pending before the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under SC & ST (P.A) Act, Khurda, where the accused-Petitioners were charged under Sections 140, 303(2), 296, 109, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS 2023 read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC and ST Act 1989. Parties had amicably settled the dispute, evidenced by a joint affidavit sworn before the Oath Commissioner and verified by local inquiry of the I.I.C., Begunia P.S. (letter dated 12.11.2025) with injury report showing simple injuries; the injured and victim had told the trial court they did not wish to continue. Court held no case under Section 109 BNS made out and most offences compoundable; proceeding quashed (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2304 of 2025

¶2

Subash Chandra Sahoo @ Subash Sahoo & Ors.

¶3

..... Petitioners

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Bijay Kumar Behera

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State Of Odisha & Anr.

¶7

..... Opp. Parties

¶8

Represented By Adv. – U.R. Jena, A.G.A.

¶9

Ashok Kumar Behera, Adv. for O.P. No.2

¶10

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

13.11.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶16

By filing the present application under Section 528 of the BNSS, the accused-Petitioners seek to invoke the inherent power to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Begunia P.S. Case No.117 of 2025 which corresponds to T.R. Case No.33 of 2025, now pending in the court of learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, under SC & ST (P.A) Act, Khurda. The abovenoted case arises out of Begunia P.S Case

¶17

Page 1 of 4.

¶18

No.117 of 2025 for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 140, 303(2), 296, 109, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) SC and ST Act, 1989.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2 belong to the same locality and they are known to each other. He further contended that due to misunderstanding, a scuffle took place between both sides. However, he further submitted that the injured has sustained simple injuries. He further contended that in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled between both sides with the intervention of the well-wishers and local gentries. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the informant is no more interested to proceed further in the present case and that the parties are residing peacefully in the locality. He further contended that unless the present criminal proceeding is brought to an end the trial between both sides will continue further. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the entire criminal proceeding be quashed in exercise of the inherent power of this Court.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Informant on the other hand, while supporting the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that indeed the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and that they are now living peacefully in the locality. He further submitted that indicating the aforesaid fact a joint affidavit has been filed by both sides which was sworn before the Oath Commissioner of this Court. Further, referring to the said affidavit, learned counsel for the Informant

¶21

Page 2 of 4.

¶22

submitted that the Informant does not wish to proceed further in the present case and he is interested in maintaining cordial relationship with the Petitioners. On such ground, learned counsel for the Informant submitted that he has no objection in the event this Court quashes the entire criminal proceeding.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, obtained instruction from the I.I.C, Begunia P.S. The I.I.C, Begunia P.S vide his letter dated 12.11.2025 has provided instruction to the counsel for the State along with a copy of the injury report. Such instruction as well as the injury report was placed before this Court, the same is taken on record. On perusal of the instruction it appears that the I.I.C himself conducted a local inquiry and found that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature as per the opinion of the Medical Officer, who happens to be a doctor in the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. He further submitted that the injured and victim appeared before the learned trial court and stated before the Court that they have also settled the dispute and that they are no more interested in continuing with the present case. In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the State contended that he will have no objection in the event this Court passes any appropriate order to secure the ends of justice.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the subsequent development, further taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the parties as well as the report of the I.I.C., Begunia P.S dated 12.11.2025 and the injury

¶25

Page 3 of 4.

¶26

report annexed thereto, this Court observes that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and such fact has been verified by the I.I.C. of the concerned police station and found to be correct. In view of the aforesaid development and keeping in view the injury report, this Court is of the view that no case under Section 109 of BNS is made out against the present Petitioners. So far the other sections are concerned, it appears that most of the offences are compoundable in nature. Keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been amicably resolved and the parties are residing peacefully in the locality, further taking note of the report of the I.I.C., Begunia P.S, this Court is of the view that the present case is a fit case where this Court should exercise its inherent power to advance the cause of justice. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding arising out of Begunia P.S. Case No.117 of 2025 which corresponds to T.R. Case No.33 of 2025 is hereby quashed.

¶27

8. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed.

¶28

( A.K. Mohapatra)

¶29

Judge

¶30

Anil

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Page 4 of 4.

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Nov-2025 16:47:43

Subash Chandra Sahoo @ Subash Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash Chandra Sahoo @ Subash Sahoo 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

Sita Kar Vs State of Odisha

Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Odisha

Bijay Kumar Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Tanuj Kumar Sabat Vs State of Odisha

Malati Majhi Vs Basanta Pradhan

Basanta Naik Vs State of Odisha