Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 769 (ORI)

Prasant Kumar Rout v. State Of Orissa

2018-08-28

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT S.K. Sahoo, J. - Heard B.B. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prasanjeet Mohapatra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The petitioner Prasant Kumar Rout has filed this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner in connection G.R. Case No. 213 of 2011 arising out of Sambalpur G.R.P.S. Case No. 08 of 2011 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur in which cognizance of the offences has been taken under sections 354/294/506 of the Indian Penal Code as per order dated 18.02.2011. 3. It appears that on the basis of the first information report submitted by opposite party no.2 Sabitri Bal, Sambalpur G.R. P.S. Case No. 08 of 2011 was instituted on 04.02.2011 under sections 354/294/506 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite party no.2 that in the meantime, at the intervention of well wishers and relations, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties not want to proceed against the petitioner and in that connection, an affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no. 2. On the last date, copy of the affidavit of opposite party no.2 has been served on the learned counsel for the State. It appears that the petitioner was the Head Constable of RPF and opposite party no.2 was the Sub-Inspector of police at Bramahani Tarang Police Station. Since the offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable in nature, even though the other offences under sections 354 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code are not compoundable but since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, I am of the humble view that no fruitful purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to continue and continuance of proceeding would amount to miscarriage of justice. 5. Therefore, I am inclined to invoke my inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and quash the impugned order dated 18.02.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur as well as the entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 213 of 2011. 6. Accordingly, the CRLMC application is allowed.