Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 184 (ORI)

Ramani Ranjan Singhdeo v. State of Orissa

2018-02-12

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. This is an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner Ramani Ranjan Singhdeo for quashing the first information report in Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No. 35 of 2005 registered under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code which corresponds to G.R. Case 136 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal. This Court vide order dated 09.06.2005 granted interim stay of further proceeding of the said case and the interim order was extended from time to time. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in spite of such interim order, charge sheet was placed by the Investigating Officer on 25.07.2005 on the basis of which the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal vide order dated 27.08.2005 has taken cognizance of offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process against the petitioner. As per the order dated 16.10.2017, the prayer for amendment of the CRLMC application to quash the order of taking cognizance was allowed in Misc. Case No. 931 of 2017 and the petitioner was directed to file a consolidated petition. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner filed the consolidated petition which is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to affidavit dated 26.07.2005 stated to have been filed by the informant Sunil Kumar Behera which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the consolidated petition wherein the deponent has mentioned that due to misunderstanding, the case was filed and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties with the intervention of well wishers and he does not want to proceed with the case. He has specifically mentioned that the affidavit is required to be filed before this Court in connection with this case. Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. which deals with compounding of offences indicate that offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be compounded with the permission of the Court by the person cheated. The informant who is the person cheated was not made a party before this Court when the case was filed and he has been arrayed as opp. party no.2 in the consolidated petition. In the event notice is issued to him, there will be further delay in disposal of the case. The informant who is the person cheated was not made a party before this Court when the case was filed and he has been arrayed as opp. party no.2 in the consolidated petition. In the event notice is issued to him, there will be further delay in disposal of the case. Law is well settled that in respect of offences covered by subsection (2) of section 320 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to examine the nature of offence and the evidence and to satisfy itself whether or not permission should be granted. The discretion under the section must be exercised judiciously. If the Court finds that the case is one in which permission should be granted, he should do it. Unless the Court permits the compounding of the offence, the complainant cannot compound it. If the Court finds that it was a lawful compromise not made under coercion or duress or similar other circumstances, the compromise can be accepted. Therefore, in my humble view the petition for compounding the offences in terms of section 320(2) Cr.P.C. should be filed before the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal in G.R. Case No. 136 of 2005 by both the parties i.e. the petitioner and the informant seeking permission of the Court. In the event such a petition is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the learned Magistrate after ascertaining the genuineness of the averments taken in the petition, shall pass necessary order in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, the CRLMC application is disposed of. The interim order of stay dated 09.06.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 1198 of 2005 which was extended from time to time stands vacated.