Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 472 (ORI)

Gola @ Mihir Kumar Nayak v. State of Orissa

2010-07-15

B.K.NAYAK

body2010
ORDER 15.07.2010 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned coun¬sel for the opposite party no.2-the informant, and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. perused the records and the joint affidavit. The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. praying to quash the F.I.R. filed by oppo¬site party no.2 on 06.07.2009 and the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 558 of 2009 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsingh¬pur which arose out of the said F.I.R. On the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the present opposite party no.2, Tirtol P.S. Case No. 112 of 2009 was registered for alleged commission of offences under Sections 341/323/294/506 of the I.P.C. corresponding to G.R. Case No. 558 of 2009 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur. The short allegations in the F.I.R. are that on 06.07.2009 at about 3.00 P.M., the informant returned from Cuttack to his house by an Indica Car and got the Car parked on the street leading to his house. In his absence, while the driver of the Car was present, the petitioner came and abused in filthy language and objected to the parking of the Car on the road. Having learnt about such abuse from the driver, when the informant asked the petitioner-accused as to why he was abusing, the latter assaulted him by means of an umbrella and also threatened to kill. It is stated in the petition and also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the informant are cousins and that on the intervention of the well-wishers, they have resolved their dispute and restored previous cordial relationship and that it has been decided not to proceed further with the G.R. Case. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has also been supported by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and both the petitioner and opposite party no.2 have filed a joint petition with affidavits stating that they are cousins and neighbours and at the intervention of well-wishers they have forgotten their past dispute. Cordial relationship between them has been restored. It is also the submission of both the parties that continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would not be in the interest of either of the parties, as there is little chance of conviction of the petitioner. Cordial relationship between them has been restored. It is also the submission of both the parties that continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would not be in the interest of either of the parties, as there is little chance of conviction of the petitioner. In this respect reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Bibhabasu Mohanty @ Chiku and others v. State of Orissa and others, CLT (2006) (Supp.) (Crl.) 176 in which this Hon’ble Court directed quashing of the proceeding in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. since it has observed therein that the chance of conviction of the petitioner therein was bleak. Reliance is also placed on an another judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Artabandhu Samal and others v. State of Orissa and others, 2010 (I) OLR-624, wherein this Hon’ble Court by referring various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2111 as well as Nikhil Mer¬chant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2008) 41 OCR (SC) 427 came to direct quashing of the criminal proceedings. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the joint affidavits filed by the accused and opposite party no.2-informant in the Court and keeping in view the relationship between them and the minor nature of offences alleged against the petitioner, I am of the considered view that there is little chance of conviction of the petitioner and continuance of the proceedings against him will not be in the interest of justice. It is, therefore, a fit case to exercise the inherent power of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceedings. According¬ly, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 558 of 2009 arising out of Tirtol P.S. Case No. 112 of 2009 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur is quashed. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. CRLMC allowed.