Allowed¶54

Minaketana Samal v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC13 Aug 2025CRLMC/3427/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMC 3427 of 2017; High Court of Orissa; quashing of criminal proceeding; amicable settlement; compromise affidavit; Section 482 Cr.P.C. inherent powers; non-compoundable offences; Sections 427/323/294/341/448/34 IPC; ICC Case No.191 of 2013; protest petition; S.D.J.M. Anandapur Keonjhar; electricity inspection; Section 126 Electricity Act 2003; excess load detection; NESCO officials; counter FIR; final report false; Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843; Chittaranjan Dash, J.; order dated 13.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in ICC Case No.191 of 2013 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur, Keonjhar, in the interest of justice; CRLMC 3427 of 2017 allowed as a necessary corollary. ¶54

Minaketana Samal Vs State of Orissa — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding in ICC Case No.191 of 2013 against the Petitioners, founded on a protest petition and subsequently settled between the parties, is an abuse of process of law and ought to be quashed in exercise of the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Invocation of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to quash a First Information Report or criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between offender and victim is distinct from compounding an offence; while the power to compound is circumscribed by Section 320 Cr.P.C., the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised even in respect of non-compoundable offences, but only (i) to secure the ends of justice and (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

On the facts, the dispute arose out of an inspection conducted by the electricity officials in due discharge of their statutory duties, giving rise to allegations and counter-allegations; its nature is not heinous or grave, involving no moral turpitude or public interest element, but has an overwhelming civil flavour stemming from the statutory functions of the electricity authority.

¶50

Key takeaways

Where the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the complainant himself has acknowledged by affidavit that the case was initiated due to misunderstanding and that he has no intention to pursue the matter, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly when there is no possibility of a conviction.ratio¶51
The criminal proceeding before the learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur, Keonjhar in ICC Case No.191 of 2013 in the offences under Sections 427/323/294/341/448/34 IPC does not merit continuation and is deserved to be quashed; accordingly the criminal proceeding stands quashed in the interest of justice and, as a necessary corollary, the CRLMC is allowed.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal miscellaneous (Orissa High Court, Cuttack; Chittaranjan Dash, J.) — Quashing of criminal proceeding on amicable settlement — Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. exercisable even in non-compoundable offences, to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. Petitioners, NESCO employees (S.D.O., Junior Engineer, Junior Technician, Lineman), were prosecuted on a protest petition (ICC Case No.191 of 2013, learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur, Keonjhar) for offences under Sections 427/323/294/341/448/34 IPC. The dispute originated in an inspection on 11.01.2013 carried out under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in which excess load, unauthorised commercial use and hooking were detected; the complainant's group allegedly assaulted the inspecting team. The police had earlier reported the cross-allegations false; cognizance was taken on protest petition on 27.02.2015 (the impugned order). Pending trial the parties compromised and the complainant swore an affidavit that the complaint arose from misunderstanding and that he did not wish to pursue it. Holding that the dispute had an overwhelming civil flavour stemming from statutory functions of the electricity authority, was neither heinous nor grave, and that continuance would be an abuse of process with no possibility of conviction, the Court, relying on Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2017 SC 4843, quashed ICC Case No.191 of 2013 and allowed the CRLMC.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC 3427 of 2017

¶2

Minaketana Samal & Others …. Petitioners

¶3

Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. State of Odisha & another Opp. Parties

¶6

Mr. A.K. Apat, Addl. P.P

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No.

13.08.2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶13

By means of this application, the Petitioner assails the impugned order dated 27.02.2015, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur, Keonjhar in ICC Case No.191 of 2013, whereupon the learned court took cognizance of the offences U/s 427/323/294/341/448/34 of the IPC implicating the Petitioner.

¶14

The background facts of the case are that the Petitioners are employees of the Northern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “NESCO”). Petitioner No.1 was serving as the S.D.O., Petitioner No.2 as a Junior Engineer, Petitioner No.3 as a Junior Technician, and

¶15

Petitioner No.4 as a Lineman. On 11.01.2013, the Petitioners, in their official capacity, along with the staff of the Energy Police, Keonjhar Police Station, visited village Badarampas for inspection. In course of the inspection, they detected pilferage of electricity in the locality. They found that consumer Brahamananda Biswal, who had been allotted 1 K.W. of energy under the Domestic Category, was using load in excess of the sanctioned demand. It was further detected that one Hemanta Ku. Pattanaik was operating a Cable T.V. Transmission business in the said premises without obtaining permission from the Utility. Such use being unauthorised within the meaning of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the category of supply to the premises was revised from Domestic to Commercial. Further, during the said verification it was discovered that one Rama Chandra Sahoo and his brother were indulged in unauthorised consumption of electricity by hooking, and were using the said power for processing paddy.

¶16

While the Petitioners were discharging their official duties, the complainant (O.P. No.2), son of consumer Brahamananda Biswal, along with Sukuta Biswal, Babuli Pattanaik, Ramachandra Sahoo, Rabindra Kumar Dash and others, formed an unlawful assembly and physically assaulted the Petitioners, besides extending threats of dire consequences. They abused the Petitioners in filthy language, forcibly

¶17

Page 2 of 10

¶18

snatched away the key of the vehicle, camera and mobile phone, and deleted the photographs with the intention of destroying the evidence collected during inspection. They further obstructed the Petitioners from performing their official duties and in the process brutally assaulted the staff, including one Sambhunath Panigrahi (CL-B), who sustained bodily injuries. With much difficulty, the Petitioners were rescued from the spot upon the intervention of the local police of Nandipada Police Station. In connection therewith, Petitioner No.1 lodged an FIR before the I.I.C., Nandipada Police Station on the same day, i.e., 11.01.2013, which was registered as Nandipada P.S. Case No.1. Subsequently, on 14.01.2013, Petitioner No.1 also reported the matter to his superior, the Executive Engineer, narrating the entire incident.

¶19

Apprehending arrest, the complainant allegedly lodged a counter FIR on 12.01.2013 before IIC, Nandiapada P.S., alleging that on 11.01.2013, the Petitioners gave kick to the door of his house, used obscene language, pushed him as a result of which he fell down. It is also alleged in the FIR that the Petitioners also destroyed the cable and the antenna, the cost of which was about of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) and the said FIR was registered by Nandiapada P.S. Case No.2 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.16 of 2013.

¶20

Page 3 of 10

¶21

The local police in course of the investigation of the said G.R. Case No.16 of 2013 corresponding to Nandiapada P.S. Case No.2 of 2013, visited the spot, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of the investigation submitted Final Report, mentioning the allegations as false.

¶22

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Report, the O.P. No.2 filed a protest petition before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 07.11.2013, and the same was registered as ICC No.191 of 2013.

¶23

After several adjournments, learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 27.02.2015 took cognizance of offences implicating the Petitioner and issued process for their appearance. On being noticed the Petitioners appeared on the date fixed and filed an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. before the learned S.D.J.M. Anandpur stating there in that the aforesaid case is a false case and the same has been maliciously instituted and further stated that the Petitioners are employees of NESCO and considering the nature of employment that they are engaged in public utility services, their personal appearance may be dispensed with upon an undertaking that they would appear as and when directed by the court in the interest of justice.

¶24

Page 4 of 10

¶25

The learned court, however, rejected the Petitioners’ prayer for dispensing with their personal appearance and to be represented under Section 205 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners approached this Court in CRLMC No.2084 of 2015 seeking to quash the impugned order. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties, was pleased to allow the said application vide order dated 22.06.2015.

¶26

Subsequently, the case was transferred to the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Anandapur. During the pendency of the matter, the consumer (O.P. No.2) approached the revisional camp of the Utility, admitted his guilt, and sought revision of the assessed dues. Taking his grievance into consideration, the revisional camp reassessed the excess drawal of energy at Rs.26,520/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Thousand Five Hundred Twenty only), which the consumer paid on 19.10.2015.

¶27

The Petitioners submitted that the proceeding in the aforesaid complaint case against them are nothing but abuse of process of law, in the manner that the cause of action of the aforesaid complaint was the result of an official inspection conducted by the Petitioners in the village pursuant to the statutory mandate. In absence of any sanction having been accorded to proceed with the prosecution, the cognizance taken by the learned court being not in accordance in the eye of law is required to be set aside. The Petitioners also took several

¶28

Page 5 of 10

¶29

grounds assailing the impugned order and submitted that the continuation of the proceeding would be of no benefit inasmuch as the same would not ultimately result in implicating the Petitioners in the offences alleged.

¶30

In course of the hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and a compromise having been drawn stated in a sworn affidavit furnished to that effect by the parties, wherein the O.P. No.2 has fairly agreed that the initiation of the complaint case was the outcome of a misunderstanding between the parties and has no intention whatsoever to proceed further in the matter.

¶31

It is a trite law that the invocation of jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the offender and the victim is distinct from the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. In the case of compounding, the power of the Court is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereas the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised even in respect of noncompoundable offences. However, such inherent power, though wide in its ambit and plenitude, is required to be exercised only:

¶32

Page 6 of 10

¶33

(i) to secure the ends of justice; and

¶34

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

¶35

The same has been also reiterated in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. , reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843 . Held as follows –

¶36

“15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

¶37

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

¶38

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

¶39

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

¶40

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to

¶41

Page 7 of 10

¶42

secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

¶43

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

¶44

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

¶45

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

¶46

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

¶47

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶48

Page 8 of 10

¶49

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

¶50

Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the dispute arose out of an inspection conducted by the electricity officials in due discharge of their statutory duties, which subsequently gave rise to allegations and counterallegations. The nature of the dispute, therefore, is not of a heinous or grave character involving moral turpitude or public interest, but one having an overwhelming civil flavour stemming from the statutory functions of the electricity authority.

¶51

In such circumstances, where the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the complainant himself has acknowledged by way of affidavit that the case was initiated due to misunderstanding and has no intention to pursue the matter further, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would serve no useful purpose. Rather, it would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly when there is no possibility of a conviction.

¶52

Page 9 of 10

¶53

Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceeding before learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur, Keonjhar in ICC Case No.191 of 2013 in the offences U/s. 427/323/294/341/448/34 does not merit continuation and is deserved to be quashed.

¶54

In the result, the criminal Proceeding in ICC Case No.191 of 2013 stands quashed in the interest of justice. As a necessary corollary, the CRLMC is allowed.

¶55

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶56

Sarbani

¶57

Page 10 of 10

¶58

Signature Not Verified

¶59

Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 17:39:08

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 27.02.2015 taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 427/323/294/341/448/34 IPC implicating the Petitioners and issuing process for their appearance, in ICC Case No.191 of 2013.¶13
learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur, Keonjhar · 27.02.2015
Prior proceeding
On 11.01.2013 the Petitioners, NESCO employees (S.D.O., Junior Engineer, Junior Technician, Lineman), inspected village Badarampas with Energy Police staff; they detected pilferage/excess load, unauthorised Cable T.V. operation, and hooking; supply category was revised from Domestic to Commercial under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.¶15
Prior proceeding
During the inspection the complainant (O.P. No.2), son of consumer Brahamananda Biswal, with others allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted the Petitioners and staff, obstructed official duties, snatched vehicle key/camera/mobile phone and deleted photographs; the Petitioners were rescued by local police of Nandipada Police Station.¶16
Prior proceeding
Petitioner No.1 lodged an FIR on 11.01.2013 regarding the assault, registered as Nandipada P.S. Case No.1; he also reported the incident to his superior, the Executive Engineer, on 14.01.2013.¶18
Prior proceeding
Complainant lodged a counter FIR on 12.01.2013 alleging the Petitioners gave kick to his door, used obscene language, pushed him and destroyed cable and antenna costing about Rs.30,000/-; registered as Nandiapada P.S. Case No.2 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.16 of 2013.¶19
Prior proceeding
Police investigated G.R. Case No.16 of 2013, visited the spot, examined witnesses, recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and submitted a Final Report mentioning the allegations as false.¶21
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the Final Report, O.P. No.2 filed a protest petition before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 07.11.2013, registered as ICC No.191 of 2013.¶22
Prior proceeding
On appearance pursuant to process, the Petitioners filed an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. seeking dispensation of personal appearance on the ground of employment in NESCO/public utility services.¶23
Prior proceeding
The learned Magistrate rejected the Petitioners' prayer for dispensation of personal appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C.¶25
Prior proceeding
The Petitioners challenged the rejection in CRLMC No.2084 of 2015; the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the application vide order dated 22.06.2015; the case was thereafter transferred to the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Anandapur.¶25
Prior proceeding
During pendency, the consumer (O.P. No.2) admitted his guilt at the Utility's revisional camp; excess drawal of energy was reassessed at Rs.26,520/-, which he paid on 19.10.2015.¶26
Prior proceeding
Parties amicably settled; a compromise was drawn and a sworn affidavit furnished by the parties, the O.P. No.2 agreeing that the complaint case arose out of a misunderstanding and expressing no intention to proceed further.¶30

Minaketana Samal v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minaketana Samal v. State of Orissa

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

Swarnalata Das Vs State of Odisha

Debi Pr.Bindhani Vs State of Orissa

Kishor Kumar Kshatri Vs State of Odisha

Manorajan Panda Vs State of Orissa

Mousumi Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Amita Karia Vs State of Orissa and Anr.