Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 209 (ORI)

Sura @ Surath Chandra Jena v. State of Orissa

2007-03-28

I.M.QUDDUSI

body2007
JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. — This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of the proceeding in G.R. Case No.92 of 2005 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a first informa¬tion report was lodged on 31.1.2005 by the informant, namely, Chatura Durga, alleging therein that on 30.1.2005 at about 9.30 p.m. when he was working as Manager at “Chancellor Hotel” of one Abhiram Samal, all the petitioners came inside the hotel and abused him and threatened him to kill and asked him to call the owner of the hotel. Thereafter he called the owner Abhiram Samal who reached there on which petitioner No.1 asked him about the hotel but all on a sudden petitioner No.1 assaulted the first informant and the owner of the hotel Abhiram Samal by a sword as a result of which they sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter F.I.R. No.7 of 2005 was filed and a case punishable under Sec¬tions 294/323/341/506/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. 3. Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within the public view shall be liable under that section. From the F.I.R. it appears that the incident is alleged to have taken place at 9.30 p.m. in the night inside a hotel to which entry of public is reserved. The F.I.R. also does not speak of presence of any witness or member of public at the time of incident. There¬fore, if at all any incident occurred, prima facie the same cannot be said to have taken place in public view. 4. On perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that there was no allegation to make out a case under Section 294 IPC. Therefore, registration of case under Section 294 IPC against the petition¬ers cannot be said to be proper. Therefore, the first information report in respect of the above offence is quashed. 5. As regards the offence under Section 506 IPC, the allegation made in the F.I.R. does not speak of any threat to cause death or grievous hurt or to cause destruction of the property etc. Therefore, the first information report in respect of the above offence is quashed. 5. As regards the offence under Section 506 IPC, the allegation made in the F.I.R. does not speak of any threat to cause death or grievous hurt or to cause destruction of the property etc. Therefore, the allegation made would at best make out a case under Part-1 of Section 506 IPC, which is compoundable by the person intimidated. The other remaining sections against the petitioners are Sections 323 and 341 IPC which are compound¬able under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. An affidavit has been filed by opposite party No.2, the first informant Chatura Durga, stating that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and they are living peacefully in the locality and he does not want to prosecute G.R. Case No.92 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput. There¬fore, the offences are deemed to have been compounded. 7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, since no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter to the learned Magistrate for compounding the offence or for trial, in the interest of justice, I think it appropriate to drop the proceedings in G.R. Case No.92 of 2005 on the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput. Therefore, the proceedings in G.R. Case No.92 of 2005 stands disposed of in terms of the above order. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. CRLMC disposed of.