Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 195 (ORI)

Duskar Barik v. State of Orissa

2017-02-23

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. Heard Mr. Sukumar Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jyoti Prakash Patra, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant-opp. party no.2. 2. The petitioner in this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has prayed for quashing the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 621 of 2003 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar which arises out of Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No.117 of 2003 in which on 14.02.2005 after receipt of the charge sheet, the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar has taken cognizance of the offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process against the petitioner. 3. There is no dispute that the opp.party no.2 Benudhar Barik who is the informant in the case is the father of the petitioner Duskar Barik. 4. The opp. party no.2 lodged the first information report before Officer in charge, Sadar police station, Keonjhar on 01.08.2003, on the basis of which Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No. 117 of 2003 was registered under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted final report on 25.11.2003 on the ground that it is mistake of law. After receipt of such final report, the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar issued notice to the informant to file protest petition, if any, but subsequently on the petition submitted by the Officer in charge, Sadar Police Station, Keonjhar for reopening of the investigation, necessary permission was granted by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar on 17.03.2004 to reopen the case and thereafter, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, cognizance of offence was taken. 5. It appears that in the meantime, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in that respect, the opp.party no.2-informant has filed an affidavit before this Court indicating therein that it was a family dispute between him and the petitioner and they have amicably settled the matter between them and due to his old age and poor health condition, he is living with the petitioner who is taking his care of and they are leading peaceful lives and in view of the change in circumstances, he does not want to pursue the criminal case against the petitioner and he has got no objection if the criminal proceeding is dropped. 6. 6. The offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is a compoundable one with the permission of the Court, as per section 320(2) Cr.P.C. Keeping in view the relationship between the parties and the fact that the case arises out of family dispute and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the opp. party no.2 is no more interested to proceed against the petitioner, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to continue and therefore, in the interest of justice, invoking my inherent power, I am inclined to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 7. Accordingly, application filed by the petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 621 of 2003 which arises out of Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No. 117 of 2003 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Keonjhar stands quashed.