Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 319 (ORI)

Harihar Sahoo v. State of Orissa

2007-05-03

A.K.SAMANTARAY

body2007
ORDER 3.5.2007 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl.Standing Counsel appearing for the State. The petitioners in this Crl.Misc. Case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. have prayed for quashing of the proceeding in GR Case No.2320/2005 arising out of Jatni PS Case No.158/2005 pending before the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that chargesheet in the case has already been filed on 20.9.2005 under Sections 341, 294, 506 & 307 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The grievance of the petitioners is that offence under Section 307 from the facts and circumstances of the case and the medical report which was ob¬tained on police requisition after examination of the injured is not at all attracted and the police has intentionally added this Section with a view to harass the petitioners. It is also submit¬ted that at best the petitioners’ could be chargesheeted under Section 325 of the IPC as there is admittedly a fracture injury on the left leg of the injured and there is no injury on any vital part of the body of the injured as no blow was dealt on any vital part of the body. It is further submitted by him that since there is a mention in the FIR that a blow is dealt on the head of the injured perhaps chargesheet has been submitted under Section 307 of the IPC. I have perused the injury report and found that there is no other injury than the two injuries on the left leg which is a fracture injury and another swelling which was not accompanied by the fracture on the hand of the injured. In the circumstance, it appears that there is no occasion of chargesheeting the accused under Section 307 of the IPC which is an offence for attempting to commit murder. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the informant, Dinabandhu Mohanty. In the circumstance, it appears that there is no occasion of chargesheeting the accused under Section 307 of the IPC which is an offence for attempting to commit murder. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the informant, Dinabandhu Mohanty. It is the admitted fact that both parties have compromised the matter outside the Court and they had filed affidavits and compromise petition before the learned SDJM and in view of the offences involved, the learned SDJM did not consider the same for which they have come to this Court for quashing of the proceeding in view of the settlement arrived at and after the settlement parties who are co-villagers are living peacefully forgetting their differences. It is also submitted by them that in view of the settlement which is a genuine one, the continuance of this GR proceeding is not at all desirable which should in the interest of justice be quashed. I have perused the affidavits filed by the parties in this Court on 9.1.2007 and it has been duly signed by the informant as well as the injured on the averments therein manifests the fact that they have arrived at a genuine compromise and are living peacefully forgetting their differences. It is also apparent that further continuance of the GR proceeding or if the case is com¬mitted to the Court of Session, the sessions trial would be nothing but a futile exercise for no fruitful reason since the informant and the injured are not going to depose against the petitioner in view of the settlement. In the result therefore, the Criminal Proceeding in GR Case No.2320/2005 arising out of Jatni PS case No.58/2005 pending in the Court of SDJM, Bhubaneswar is hereby quashed. The Crl.Misc. Case is allowed. Crl. Misc. Case allowed.