Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 679 (ORI)

Narendranath Das v. State of Orissa

2016-08-23

S.K.SAHOO

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. Heard Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jyoti Prakash Patra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Asit Kumar Jena, learned counsel for the informant. This is an application filed by the petitioners Narendranath Das and his wife Basanti @ Minamani Das under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order dated 23.08.2011 of the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore passed in C.T. Case No.1170 of 2010 in taking cognizance of offences punishable under sections 341, 294, 323, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. (POA) Act, 1989. The said case arises out of Remuna P.S. Case No.90 of 2010. 2. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report lodged by one Gagan Das, son of late Nalu Das of village Fartipur, P.S.-Remuna, Dist-Balasore before Inspector in Charge, Remuna Police Station is that on 17.07.2010 at about 8.00 a.m. relating to a petty matter, the petitioner no.1 abused the informant in the name of his caste. The petitioners and their two sons assaulted the informant by means of slaps and fist blows. The petitioner no.1 assaulted the informant by means of a bamboo lathi for which the later sustained bleeding injury. When the wife of the informant arrived at the spot, she was pushed by the petitioner no.1 who also tried to outrage her modesty but she fled away from the spot. The accused persons also threatened the informant with dire consequence. On the basis of such First Information Report, Remuna P.S. Case No. 90 of 2010 was registered on 17.07.2010 under sections 341/294/323/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently the investigation of the case was taken over by D.S.P. who after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet on 07.08.2011 against the petitioners under sections 341/294/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST (P.A.) Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners and the informant belonged to same village and over a petty dispute between the parties on the date of occurrence, the case was instituted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners and the informant belonged to same village and over a petty dispute between the parties on the date of occurrence, the case was instituted. He further contended that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in view of such settlement of the dispute, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to continue inasmuch as the chance of conviction of the petitioners is bleak and therefore, it is a fit case where this Court should exercise its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceeding. Learned counsel for the informant has filed an affidavit of the informant wherein it is indicated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the informant does not want to proceed further with the case. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer made in the application filed by the petitioners and contended that since the offence under section 3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST (PA) Act is not compoundable, therefore, invoking power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the proceeding cannot be quashed. 4. In case of Gian Singh –Vrs.-State of Punjab & another reported in (2012) 53 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 891, it is held as follows:- “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Ac t or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” Considering the ratio of the aforesaid decision and looking at the facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that the offences alleged in this case are not heinous and serious and the dispute between the parties is basically private or personal in nature and when the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak and therefore, continuation of criminal proceeding would put to the petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and therefore, to prevent abuse of process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, I am of the view that the criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No. 1170 of 2010 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Balasore should be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.08.2011 of the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore passed in C.T. Case No. 1170 of 2010 in taking cognizance of the offences under sections 341, 294, 323, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. (POA) Act, 1989 stands quashed. In the result, the CRLMC is allowed.