Hitesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the Informant-Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶16

By filing of the present application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Kendrapara P.S. Case No.164 of 2025 which corresponds to G.R. Case No.1588 of 2025 now pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara. The above noted Kendrapara P.S. Case No.164 of 2025 was registered at the instance of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 as informant on the allegation of commission of an offence

¶17

Page 1 of 4.

¶18

punishable under Sections 318(4)296/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner and the Informant-Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 are known to each other. He further contended that they are having a business relationship and regular transaction takes place between them. Due to a misunderstanding, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 have lodged this FIR claiming a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- which is outstanding towards the business dues. He further contended that in the meantime, the Parties have amicably resolved the dispute and that the difference of opinion with regard to the outstanding dues has already been resolved and that the informant has no subsisting grievance against the present Petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner drew attention of this Court to the affidavits filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 on 14.11.2025 which was sworn before the Oath Commissioner of this Court. Since the dispute involved in the FIR has already been resolved amicably and that the informant-Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 are no more interested in continuing with the present criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that the pending criminal proceeding be quashed in the larger interest of justice.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the Informant on the other hand supported the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and referred to the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 wherein the Opposite Parties have specifically stated that due to a delay in payment of the final bill amount, the present FIR was lodged. It has also been stated that some work order was given to the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 by the Petitioner and despite completion of such work order they had not been paid their

¶21

Page 2 of 4.

¶22

final dues. However, in the meantime such dispute has been resolved amicably and that the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 are no more interested to proceed against the present Petitioner. On such ground learned counsel for the Informant contended that the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 will have no objection in the event the entire criminal proceeding is quashed.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that he has no specific instruction with regard to the affidavits filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3. He further contended that although the allegation made in the FIR is serious in nature, however, in the event the same has been amicable resolved and the informant is no more interested to proceed further she will have no objection in the event this Court passes any appropriate order securing the ends of justice.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the subsequent development in this case, further taking note of the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 and keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Informant, this Court found that the Informant- Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 are no more interested to continue the present criminal proceeding against the present Petitioner. It also appears that the same has been resolved amicably. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court examined the allegations made against the present Petitioner and it appears that the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS is a compoundable offence. So far as the offence under section 296 of the BNS is concerned, the same is a noncompoundable of offence. However, on a careful examination of

¶25

Page 3 of 4.

¶26

the materials on record it appears that no case is made out against the Petitioner under Section 296 of the BNS, 2023. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to quash the offence under Section 296 of BNS. So far as the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS is concerned, the Parties are granted liberty to move an application under Section 359 of BNSS for compounding of the offences within two weeks from today. In such eventuality the learned trial Court shall consider such application keeping in view the facts that the matter has already been compromised between the parties and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶27

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

¶28

( A.K. Mohapatra)

¶29

Judge

¶30

Sisir

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 21-Nov-2025 10:57:03

¶33

Page 4 of 4.

Hitesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hitesh Kumar Mishra 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

Rabindra Akshit Vs State

State of Orissa Vs Kalia Gouda

Jyotirmayee Parida Vs Pradeep Ku.Nath

Pradeep Raj Karat Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Krupasindhu Panda Vs State of Odisha

Ramya Ranjan Parida Vs State of Odisha