Rajnish Ray @ Yadav v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Jul 2025CRLMC/509/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application; inherent powers; Section 528 B.N.S.S.; amicable settlement; compromise affidavit; compounding of offences; Section 359 B.N.S.S.; simple injuries; Section 109 B.N.S.; F.I.R.; Brajarajnagar P.S. Case No.279 of 2024; C.T. Case No.1056 of 2024; J.M.F.C.-1 Jharsuguda; Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 296, 3(5) B.N.S.; CRLMC No.509 of 2025; High Court of Orissa; disposed of with liberty to compound; trial court to decide within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

CRLMC application disposed of: allegation under Section 109 B.N.S. quashed; parties granted liberty to apply for compounding of the remaining offences under Section 359 B.N.S.S. before the learned trial court within two weeks, the trial court to pass necessary orders within four weeks of filing such application. ¶¶26

Rajnish Ray @ Yadav Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding in Brajarajnagar P.S. Case No.279 of 2024 (C.T. Case No.1056 of 2024) ought to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 B.N.S.S. on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled and the parties are no longer interested in continuing it. +2 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

Having regard to the compromise affidavit of Opposite Party No.2 and the submissions made, the Court found that the informant-Opposite Party No.2 is no longer interested in pursuing the matter further, the matter having been amicably settled between the sides.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature, the Court held that no case under Section 109 of the B.N.S.S. is made out and accordingly quashed the allegation under Section 109.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

The Court found the remaining allegations compoundable in nature and, while disposing of the application, granted the parties liberty to approach the learned trial court with an application for compounding of the offences under Section 359 of the B.N.S.S. within two weeks; the trial court was to consider such application in view of the settlement and the fact that the parties are living peacefully in the locality, and pass necessary orders within four weeks from the date of filing.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (A.K. Mohapatra, J.), by order dated 15.07.2025, disposed of CRLMC No.509 of 2025 filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S. seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in Brajarajnagar P.S. Case No.279 of 2024 (C.T. Case No.1056 of 2024, J.M.F.C.-1, Jharsuguda), arising from an F.I.R. by the informant (Opposite Party No.2, Ganapat Sahu) alleging offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 296, 109 and 3(5) B.N.S. Relying on the informant's compromise affidavit (sworn 12.03.2023 before the Oath Commission) and the certified injury report showing three simple injuries sustained by the injured, the Court held that no case under Section 109 B.N.S.S. was made out and quashed the allegation under Section 109. Finding the remaining allegations compoundable, the Court disposed of the application while granting the parties liberty to approach the trial court for compounding under Section 359 B.N.S.S. within two weeks, the trial court to consider the application in view of the settlement and pass orders within four weeks of filing.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.509 of 2025

¶2

Rajnish Ray @ Yadav ..... Petitioner

¶3

Represented By Adv. - Subodh Kumar Mohanty

¶4

-versus-

¶5

1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Ganapat Sahu Represented By Adv. – Mr. Samaresh Jena, A.S.C. Ramakanta Pradhan

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR

MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

15.07.2025

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

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. Perused the application filed by the petitioner as well as documents annexed thereto.

¶14

By filing the present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. the petitioner invoking the inherent power of this Court seeks to quash the entire criminal proceeding in Brajarajnagar P.S. Case No.279 of 2024 which corresponds to C.T. Case No.1056 of 2024 pending in the file learned J.M.F.C.-1, Jharsuguda. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal case on the ground that the matter has been amicably resolved and the parties

¶15

Page 1 of 4.

¶16

have arrayed to a compromise and they are no more interested to continue the criminal proceeding.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that an F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 making allegation for commission of offences punishable under Section 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 296, 109, 3(5) B.N.S. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture referring to the injury report under annexure-2 contended that all the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. On perusal of the certified copy of the injury report it appears that the injured namely Ganpat Sahu son of Kanheya Sahu has sustained three simple injuries. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no case under Section 109 of the B.N.S.is made out against the present petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that both the petitioner and the informant belong to the same locality. On the intervention of the local gentle man and well-wishers the matter has been amicably settled. Such settlement has been recorded in the form of an affidavit sworn by the Opposite Party No.2. He further contended that since the matter has been amicably settled and the parties are residing together and living in the same locality further continuance of the present proceeding would be against the interest of justice and the same will be the abuse of process of law. He also contended that in the further continuance of the proceeding before the trial court, the chances of conviction is bleak and it would cause loss of valuable judicial time. On such ground learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the criminal proceeding be quashed.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the Informant-Opposite party No.2 at the outset contended that the informant has filed an affidavit

¶20

Page 2 of 4.

¶21

supporting the compromise which was sworn on 12.03.2023 before the Oath Commission of this Court. Further referring to the aforesaid affidavit learned counsel for the Opposite party No.2 contended that both the petitioner and the informant are known to each other and that in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled between both sides on the intervention of the local gentries and well-wishers. As such the informant-victim does not want to proceed further in the present criminal case. Accordingly, it was submitted that the informant has no objection in the event the entire criminal proceeding is quashed by this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the allegation made in the F.I.R. are serious in nature. He further submitted that quashing of the present criminal proceeding is not in the larger interest of justice. On such ground learned counsel for the State contended that the prayer made in the present application is unsustainable in law and accordingly the CRLMC application be dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the factual background of the present case, further taking note of the documents annexed to the writ application as well as the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the informant, further taking note of the compromise affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2, this Court is of the view that it appears that the informant-Opposite party No.2 is no more interested in pursuing the matter further and the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the both sides. Taking into consideration the fact that the injury sustained by the injured are simple in nature, this Court is also of the view that no

¶24

Page 3 of 4.

¶25

case under Section 109 of the B.N.S.S. is made out. Accordingly, the allegation under Section 109 is hereby quashed. So far remaining allegations are concerned this court found that the same are compoundable in nature. Accordingly while disposing of the present application the parties are granted liberty to approach the learned trial court by filing an application for compounding of the offences under Section 359 of the B.N.S.S. before the learned trial court within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, learned trial court shall consider the same keeping in view the observation made hereinabove as well as the fact that the compromise has been arrayed at within the parties that they are living peacefully in the locality and pass necessary orders thereon within four weeks from the date of filing such application.

¶26