Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1430 (ORI)

Mani Bhusan Ray v. State of Orissa

2017-12-11

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. 1. This is an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners Mani Bhusan Ray, Abatar Singh, Rajesh Dash, Sachitananda Singh, Hemant Kumar Palai, Pramod Kumar Panda and Basant Kumar Mohapatra with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 08.04.1999 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda in G.R. Case No. 14 of 1999 in taking cognizance of the offences under sections 147/148/427/294/506/452/436/149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. The said case arises out of Brajarajnagar P.S. Case No.02 of 1999. 2. On the first information report submitted by the opp.party no.2 Ramjiban Verma, the case was instituted on 02.01.1999 under sections 147/148/427/294/506/452/436/149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act against more than 100 employees of Orient Paper Mills, Brajrajnagar. It is the prosecution case that on 02.01.1999 at about 10.00 a.m. a mob consisting of more than 100 persons carrying lethal weapons trespassed into the house of Sri K.C. Das, Personal Manager (opp. party no.3) by breaking open the main door, ransacked the house, totally damaged the household goods, the glass pans, T.V. stand etc. The mob came from the main gate side abusing vulgar language and searching for the opp. party no.3 and his family members to assault and threatened them. The mob further went to the guest house and destroyed the entrance door, furnitures etc., terrorized the employees of the guest house and they also set fire in the drawing room of the guest house and threatened the employees of the guest house to kill and they also damaged three cars and one jeep of the guest house and then the mob came to the residence of Sri I.C. Jain, Asst. Vice President and broke the glass pans of the doors and windows, flower pots, coolers and air conditioners and shouted to drag I.C. Jain to assault him and also trespassed to the bungalow of the Director with petrol to torch the properties. 3. During course of investigation, numbers of witnesses were examined and they stated about the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged crime and accordingly, charge sheet was submitted on 31.03.1999 by the Investigating Officer against the petitioners and others and after perusal of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has been pleased to pass the impugned order. 4. 3. During course of investigation, numbers of witnesses were examined and they stated about the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged crime and accordingly, charge sheet was submitted on 31.03.1999 by the Investigating Officer against the petitioners and others and after perusal of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has been pleased to pass the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations are omnibus in nature and no specific overt act has been attributed to any of the petitioners. He relied upon a xerox copy of the compromise affidavit sworn before the Notary Public, Jharsuguda in support of his submission regarding the amicable compromise of the dispute between the parties so also the xerox copy of a letter written by General Secretary to the Secretary of Home Deptt., Government of Orissa to give necessary direction to the Public Prosecutor, Jharsuguda for withdrawal of the case. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to continue and therefore, in the interest of justice, the Court should exercise the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned order to prevent abuse of process. 5. In spite of valid service of notice on opp. parties nos.2 & 3, they have not entered appearance. Except the xerox copy of an affidavit, there is no other material before me regarding compromise of the dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the State has also stated nothing is available on record regarding any proposal submitted to the Government for withdrawal of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. -Vrs.- State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 58 OCR (SC) 202, wherein the Hon’ble Court has laid down certain guidelines for the High Court while exercising its inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in case of settlement of the dispute between the parties where the offences are not compoundable. It is held in paragraph 31 as follows: “31.(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. It is held in paragraph 31 as follows: “31.(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.” 7. In the present case, since the informant and the victim have not entered appearance and there is no joint affidavit filed by the parties regarding amicable settlement of the dispute between them and when most of the offences are non-compoundable and the accusation are very serious in nature and when prima facie materials are available against the petitioners to satisfy the ingredients of the offences, I am not inclined to invoke the inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned order solely on the ground of compromise relying upon a xerox copy of the affidavit sworn before the Notary Public, Jharsuguda. 8. Accordingly, the CRLMC application being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Since it is a case of the year 1999, the learned trial Court shall do well to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible.