Allowed¶24

Amitav Panda v. Jashabidya Dash

Orissa HC11 Nov 2025CRLREV/64/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRLREV No.64 of 2016; Justice R.K. Pattanaik; order dated 11.11.2025; criminal revision; order of cognizance dated 04.01.2016 by SDJM, Sambalpur in 1.C.C. Case No.46 of 2014 set aside qua petitioner Amitav Panda; compromise and successful mediation before High Court Mediation Centre, Cuttack; mediation report at flag-R; compromise affidavit of opposite party Jashabidya Dash accepted; majority of offences compoundable; proceeding to continue against other accused; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; the impugned order of cognizance dated 4th January, 2016 (Annexure-3) in connection with 1.C.C. Case No.46 of 2014 is set aside vis-a-vis the petitioner only; the learned court below remains free to proceed against other accused persons; a certified copy of the order to be issued as per rules.

Amitav Panda Vs Jashabidya Dash — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties and the successful mediation, the order of cognizance as against the petitioner should be set aside.

¶21

Court's answer

On perusal of the complaint at Annexure-1, the Court found that the majority of offences are compoundable in nature.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

In view of the facts, the successful mediation report at flag-R and the compromise affidavit of the opposite party filed and received, the Court held that no worthy purpose would be served by allowing continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner only.

¶22

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance dated 4th January, 2016 (Annexure-3) is set aside as against the petitioner, leaving it open for the learned court below to proceed against other accused persons in 1.C.C. Case No.46 of 2014.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRLREV No.64 of 2016, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, R.K. Pattanaik, J., order dated 11.11.2025) allowed. The petitioner challenged the order of cognizance dated 4th January, 2016 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned SDJM, Sambalpur in 1.C.C. Case No.46 of 2014. During pendency the parties arrived at an amicable settlement through the High Court Mediation Centre at Cuttack (mediation reported successful, report at flag-R), and a compromise affidavit of the opposite party was filed and taken on record. On perusal of the complaint (Annexure-1) the Court found the majority of offences compoundable in nature and, holding that no worthy purpose would be served by continuing the proceeding against the petitioner alone, set aside the impugned order of cognizance vis-a-vis the petitioner, leaving it open to the learned court below to proceed against the other accused persons; a certified copy of the order was directed to be issued as per rules.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.64 of 2016

¶3

Amitav Panda

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Jashabidya Dash

¶8

…. Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. B. K. Ragada, Advocate Ms. S. Panda, Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

11.11.2025

Order No.

Heard Mr. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for opposite party.

¶17

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of cognizance dated 4^th January, 2016 passed in connection with 1.C.C. Case No.46 of 2014 by the learned SDJM, Sambalpur as at Annexure-3 on the grounds stated.

¶18

However, in the meantime, the petitioner and opposite party had a compromise and reached at an amicable settlement. In fact, the matter was referred to the High Court Mediation Centre at Cuttack and the report has been received back stating therein that the mediation has become successful. A copy of the mediation report is at flag-R. On perusal of a compromise

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

affidavit filed today, it is revealed that the opposite party amicably settled the dispute between him and the petitioner.

¶21

Mr. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of such settlement between the parties, the order of cognizance as against the petitioner should be set aside in the interest of justice. Ms. Panda, learned counsel acknowledges the fact of compromise and refers to the affidavit filed in Court. The said affidavit is accepted and taken on record.

¶22

On perusal of the complaint as at Annexure-1, the Court finds that the majority of offences are compoundable in nature. In view of the above facts and mediation report at flag-R and compromise affidavit of the opposite party filed and received today, the Court is of the view that no worthy purpose would be served to allow continuation of the proceeding as against the petitioner only, hence, therefore, the impugned order dated 4^th January, 2016 at Annexure-3 should be set aside as against him leaving it open for the learned court below to proceed against other accused persons in connection with 1.C.C. Case No.46 of 2014. Such is the view of the Court since the settlement has been reached at and even the mediation reported to have been successful.

¶23