Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 767 (ORI)

Pradeep Kumar Mishra v. State Of Orissa

2018-08-28

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT S.K. Sahoo, J. - Heard Mr. Binaya Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. 2. The petitioners have filed this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 challenging the impugned order dated 04.05.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur in I.C.C. Case No. 43 of 2011 in taking cognizance of offences under sections 332/352/500/294/167 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 20 of the Railways Protection Force Act, 1957 and sections 137 and 145 of Railways Act, 1989 and issuance of process against them. 3. It appears that on the basis of the first information report lodged by the petitioner no.3 Sabitri Bal before the Inspector in Charge of Sambalpur G.R.P.S., Sambalpur G.R.P.S. Case No. 08 of 2011 was registered under sections 354/294/506 of the Indian Penal Code and in the said case, the opposite party no.2 Prasanta Kumar Rout was charge sheeted and cognizance of the offences under sections 354/294/506 of the Indian Penal Code was taken and he challenged the order of taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding in CRLMC No. 2387 of 2014 and since the matter was amicably settled between the petitioner no.3 and opposite party no.2 and an affidavit to that effect was also filed by petitioner no.3 in the CRLMC No. 2387 of 2014, the criminal proceeding against the opposite party no.2 was quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the filing of the first information report by the petitioner no.3, a complaint petition was filed by the opposite party no.2 on 22.02.2011 before the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur and accordingly, ICC Case No. 43 of 2011 was registered. The initial statement of the complainant was recorded and thereafter, the inquiry contemplated under section 202 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was conducted, during course of some witnesses were examined and ultimately after perusing the complaint petition, initial statement of the complainant, statements of the witnesses and the documents filed by the complainant, the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur has taken cognizance of offences as per the impugned order dated 04.05.2011. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ingredients of the offences under sections 137 and 145 of Railways Act 1989 are not attracted, section 20 of the Railways Protection Force Act is not an offence and since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no fruitful purpose whatsoever would be served in allowing the proceeding to continue particularly when the case against the opposite party no. 2 at the instance of petitioner no. 3 instituted during the same transaction has already been quashed by this Court in CRLMC No. 2387 of 2014. An affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 indicating therein that at the intervention of the well wishers and relations, the matter has been amicably settled and therefore, he does not want to proceed with the case. 5. section 137 of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with fraudulently travelling or attempting to travel without proper pass or ticket. section 145 of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with punishment for drunkenness or committing nuisance etc. by any person in any railway carriage. 6. After going through the case records, I find that the ingredients of the offences under sections 137 and 145 of the Railways Act are totally lacking. Similarly section 20 of the R.P.F. Act, 1957 is not an offence but it deals with protection of the acts of the members of the Railway Protection Force. So far as the other offences are concerned, section 352 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable in nature. Taking into account the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the opposite party no. 2 has filed an affidavit that he is not interested to proceed against the petitioners and case against the opposite party no. 2 which arose during the same transaction at the instance of the petitioner no. 3 has already been quashed in CRLMC No. 2387 of 2014, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to continue and therefore in the ends of justice, I accept the prayer made by the petitioners in this application and invoking my inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 direct that impugned order dated 04.03.2011 and the entire criminal proceeding in I.C.C. Case No. 43 of 2011 stands quashed. Accordingly, the CRLMC applications are allowed. Accordingly, the CRLMC applications are allowed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.