Orissa High Court
CRLMC/288/2025 of DEBASISH MISHRA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 31 August 2026
of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.288 of 2025 CNR No. ODHC010044542025 Debasish Mishra ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Kaustuva Mohanty -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties Represented by Adv. – J.K. Ray, A.S.C. M/s.Manoj Kumar Agarwal (for O.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.288 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010044542025
Debasish Mishra
.....
Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Kaustuva Mohanty
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors.
.....
Opp. Parties
Represented by Adv. –
J.K. Ray, A.S.C.
M/s.Manoj Kumar
Agarwal (for O.P. Nos.2
& 3)
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
31.08.2026 Order No.
02.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3, who are the informant and the injured respectively and learned counsel for the State. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The accused-Petitioner in G.R Case No.556 of 2024, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara, which corresponds to Nimapara P.S Case No.152 of 2024, which was registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 294, 506, 324, 307, 34 of the I.P.C., has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the
Petitioner and the private-Opposite Parties.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner and the private-Opposite Parties are related to each other. He further submitted that due to a misunderstanding between the Petitioner and the victim, a scuffle took place. As a result, the victim has sustained some injury. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further emphatically argued that the injury sustained by the victim-Opposite Party No.3 is not grievous in nature. However, while registering the F.I.R., the police has added the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that no offence under Section 307 is made out.
5. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the injury report filed along with the application attached as Annexure-2. On perusal of the injury report, it appears that the injured has sustained three simple injuries. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid injury report, no case under Section 307 of the I.P.C is made out.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Informant as well as the injured-Opposite Party No.3 submitted before this Court that in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 referred to the joint compromise affidavit filed before this Court. He further submitted that since the matter has already been compromised, the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 are no more interested to pursue this case against the present Petitioner. Accordingly, it was submitted before this Court that the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 will have no objection in the event this Court quashes the entire criminal proceeding.
7. Learned counsels appearing for the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 also drew the attention of this Court to the affidavit at Annexure-4, which has also been filed before the learned trial court indicating the fact that the matter has been resolved amicably.
8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although he has not obtained any instruction from the concerned police station with regard to the genuineness of the compromise. However, he further submitted that on the basis of the materials placed on record and on the face of the compromise affidavit filed before this Court, he will have no objection in the event this Court passes any order to secure the ends of justice.
9. Considering the submission made by counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the subsequent development in the shape of compromise which has been reduced to writing in joint compromise affidavit filed before this Court and further taking note of the fact that the injury sustained by the injured are simple in nature, this Court is of the prima facie view that no case under Section 307 is made out against the Petitioner. On perusal of the FIR, this Court also found that the case under Section 296 of the I.P.C is also doubtful. Since the offence under Section 307 I.P.C and 294 are non-compoundable in nature and further taking into consideration the fact that dispute has already been settled between the Petitioner and the private- Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3, the offences under Section 307 and 294 of the I.P.C are hereby quashed. So far the other allegations are concerned, those are all compoundable offences. Accordingly, while disposing of the present application, liberty is granted to the parties to file an application for compounding of the offences before the learned trial court along with a copy of today’s order. In the event, any such application is filed within a period of 10 days from today, the learned trial court shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Sep-2026 11:23:26 Signature Not Verified