Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 92 (ORI)

Sandeep Sarkar and three v. State of Orissa

2006-02-03

A.S.NAIDU

body2006
ORDER 03.2.2006 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned coun¬sel for the State. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are accused in C.T. Case No. 1920/2005 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur. They are facing trial for commission of offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner No.3. Similarly, on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the mother of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 C.T. Case No. 1921 of 2005 has been regis¬tered in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur against peti¬tioner Nos.3 and 4 commission of offence under Sections 448, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the case and counter case are pending for adjudication before the same Court. It is submit¬ted that in the mean time the parties have compromised their disputes and as the offences alleged to have been committed by petitioner Nos.3 and 4 in C.T. Case No.1921/2005 are compound¬able, a petition is going to be filed by the parties before the Court below for compounding. Similarly as the parties have stream¬lined their disputes on the intervention of the gentlemen of the locality and they are now leading a peaceful life, petitioners 3 and 4 are no longer interested to prosecute C.T. Case No. 1920/2005 any further. According to Mr. Ragada as the offence alleged to have been committed is under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and the same is not compoundable, the present C.R.M.C. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceeding. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. After going through the F.I.R. filed in both the cases and after hearing parties, I find that as the informant and the accused have settled their disputes out of the Court and the informant are no longer interested to prosecute the Case, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation any further. That apart as the informant has lost interest in the case there is every likelihood that the case shall end in acquittal. In the aforesaid scenario, this Court feels that continuance of C.T. Case No.1920 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur any further would amount to abuse of process of law. I accordingly direct that further proceeding of C.T. Case No.1920 of 2005 shall be quashed. In the aforesaid scenario, this Court feels that continuance of C.T. Case No.1920 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur any further would amount to abuse of process of law. I accordingly direct that further proceeding of C.T. Case No.1920 of 2005 shall be quashed. The CRLMC is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of the this order be granted on proper application. CRLMC disposed of.