Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 455 (ORI)

Abhimanyu Pradhan v. State of Orissa

2013-10-21

B.R.SARANGI

body2013
JUDGMENT Dr. B.R.SARANGI, J. - Due to cease work call given by the High Court Bar Association, counsel representing their respective parties in the case are not present. 2. Petitioner and opposite party No.2 are present in Court in person and have filed their Voter Identity Card in support of their identity. They have contended that they have entered into a compromise and do not want to proceed with the matter. 3. Perused the original Voter Identity Card and Xerox copies thereof duly signed by the parties. The same be kept on record. 4. Opposite party No.2, being the complainant, filed I.C.C. Case No. 130 of 2013 before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda against the petitioner-accused, which has been treated as F.I.R. and registered as Belpahar P.S. Case No. 72 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1023 of 2013 under Sections 420/468/471, IPC. 5. The petitioner-accused in the Court below was the registered owner of TATA LPT 2515 TC/48 ten wheeler truck bearing Registration No. OR-23 B 4039 and decided to sell the said vehicle, which was purchased by opposite party No.2 on 4.2.2012. In course of such sale transaction, the petitioner convicted opposite party No.2 that all the relevant documents of the vehicle are valid, effective and genuine. Believing the said version, opposite party No.2 purchased the said vehicle and the petitioner has received the full and final consideration amount including the insurance premium of Rs. 17,363/-. The sale has been effected in presence of two witnesses. The petitioner handed over the documents to opposite party No.2 after transferring 'the ownership in his favour. Subsequently, on 15.6.2012, the financier of the said vehicle intimated opposite party No.2 that the insurance policy No. 3003/55725173/02/000 showing validity from 2.1.2012 to 1.1.2013 of ICICI Lombard General Insurance, which was shown by the petitioner to opposite party No.2 at the time of negotiation of the said vehicle is a forged one. It is alleged that the petitioner has manufactured the same to derive unlawful gains from the opposite party No.2. 6. In the above factual background, the complaint case was lodged and thereafter, the same was registered as Belpahar P.S. Case No. 72 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1023 of 2013 pending in the Court of reamed S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda under Sections 420/468/471, IPC. 6. In the above factual background, the complaint case was lodged and thereafter, the same was registered as Belpahar P.S. Case No. 72 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1023 of 2013 pending in the Court of reamed S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda under Sections 420/468/471, IPC. However, in the meantime, the parties have entered into a settlement amicably between themselves and to that effect the petitioner filed an affidavit on 23.9.2013 through his advocate, which is available on the record. Today opposite party No.2 in person also files an affidavit stating, inter alia, that the dispute regarding loss of money of Rs. 48,897/- sustained by him has been returned by the petitioner and they have forgotten their differences and desire to live in a friendly atmosphere. Therefore, they do not want to proceed with the case any further. 7. This Court in Madhusudan Sahu and another v. State of Orissa and another, 2013 (II) OLR 449 referring to the apex Court judgment reported in 2013 (II) OLR (SC) 97 = (2013) 4 SCC 15 (Jitendra v. Babita) has held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash the criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the needs of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High, Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Further, the apex Court also held that it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. Similar view has also been taken in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 = 2003 (II) OLR (SC) 101 and the position has been more clarified in Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika and another, (2012) 51 OCR (SC) 58. In paragraph 13 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held as follows : “It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinioh be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten tn add that the plentitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if, it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate Court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.” 8. In view of the aforesaid fact and law, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceeding, rather, continuance of the proceeding will be nothing but an empty formality. In view of the aforesaid fact and law, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceeding, rather, continuance of the proceeding will be nothing but an empty formality. Therefore, in order to prevent abuse of the process of Court and, in the ends of justice, the proceeding in G.R. Case No.1023 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Jharsuguda is quashed. 9. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed. CRLMC allowed.