Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 317 (ORI)

RAMASHANKAR PATI v. STATE OF ORISSA

2004-07-15

B.P.DAS

body2004
JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - Heard 2. Mr. D.P. Dhal Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. G.B. Jena, Learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2, i.e., the informant and Mrs. C. Kasturi, learned Additional Government Advocate. 3. This application has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner for the offences under Sections 147/148/427/323/506/379/149 of the Indian Penal Code in G.R. Case No. 35 of 2001 out of Goop P.S. Case No. 12 of 2001. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2, the informant were students of Ghanashyam Hemlata Institute of Technology and Management, Puri. 4. The prosecution case as it appears that on 10.1.2001 some students of third year has assaulted to some students of first year. When it was protested, it is alleged that on 11.1.2001 at about 6.30 P.M. due to previous enemity students of third year namely, Rasmi, Babu, Silu, Lipu, Muna Chhedipada, diploma students, Susu and mainly mechanical students of their three groups being armed with lathi, rods, suddenly attacked Deepak Nanda and injured him. When the students of 2nd year protested such anti-social activities, the above 3rd year students being united attacked the 1st year students entering into the hostel rooms and also damaged the articles for which and F.I.R. was filed and a criminal case was initiated. It is also further mentioned that there was also a counter F.I.R. being G.R. Case No. 36 of 2001 was initiated on the F.I.R. of the present Petitioner and other students involving the informant in the present case. Thereafter, the charge? sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken against the Petitioner for the offences as stated above. It is further stated that in the counter case also charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken against the present opposite party No. 2, i.e., the informant and others. 5. An affidavit has been filed today by the opposite party No. 2, Le., the informant stating there in that during the pendency of the case, due to the intervention of the guardians of both the sides, the matter was subsided and a compromise was effected. He has also filed a compromise petition before the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara while the Petitioner and Ors. were taken into custody. He has also filed a compromise petition before the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara while the Petitioner and Ors. were taken into custody. As it appears, a group clash between two rival groups of the students were effected and Learned Counsel for both the parties submits that the batch students have already passed out and prosecuting their further studies elsewhere. 6. According to the Learned Counsel for the opposite parties and the Petitioner, the case and counter case which are running against the Petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2 will not be beneficial for both the sides as they are in search of jobs and the criminal proceeding may stand on the way of both the parties and that too when the matter has already been compromised and again a good relation has already been established between the parties, there is no point in protracting the litigation and compelling the Petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2 to face the trial which is prejudicial to the interest of the parties. 7. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the offences in which the Petitioner is implicated is not compoundable in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure for which the question of compounding on compromise absolutely does not arise. But instead of going into the technicalities, it is first to see the nature of the allegation and offences made and the conduct of the parties. It is an admitted case that it is a group clash between the students. Both the groups of the students were prosecuting their studies in the Engineering College and they have already left the College. There is no previous criminal background or record either against the Petitioner or opposite party No. 2. In this regard, the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2003) 25 OCR (SC) 99, in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and another, held that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, quashing of F.I.R. becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. 8. v. State of Haryana and another, held that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, quashing of F.I.R. becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. 8. In this case, the peculiar features of the case I have already stated that the informant himself has filed a petition before this Court that there is a compromise effected between the parties for which there is no chance of conviction of the present Petitioner. Thereby in my considered opinion, no fruitful purpose will be served if the criminal proceeding is allowed to continue. Rather, it should be better if the proceeding is quashed and the Petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2 is allowed to start a new career of their own with a clean slate. Accordingly the Criminal Proceeding in G.R. Case No. 35 of 2001 is quashed. 8. The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.