CRLMC/1544/2026 of SANGRAM PRASAD SINGH Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 25 August 2026

ORDER

25.08.2026 Order No.

04.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5-Informant & Victims, and the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party

No.1.

3. By filing the present application, the Petitioners, who are accused in G.R. Case No.704 of 2022, arising out of Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No.322 of 2022, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal, seek quashing of the entire proceeding on the ground that the matter has been amicably resolved between both sides and that they are living peacefully in the locality.

4. On perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the Opposite Party No.2, as Informant, lodged an F.I.R. before the Dhenkanal Town Police Station, which was registered as F.I.R. No.0322 dated 29.05.2022 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/294/323/324/307/452/354/427/379/506/34 of I.P.C. As per the F.I.R. allegation, on 28.05.2022 at 10.00 P.M. one Partha Singh along with Chikun Singh, Pramod, Kulu Singh, Sangram Singh and two others belong to Kunjakanta came to Informant’s hotel by holding iron rod on their hand and abused her and her staffs in obscene languages. They allegedly attempted to outrage her modesty by disrobing her saree and assaulted her son and sister-in-law, as a result, they received injury on their head. In the process, damage was caused to the hotel property, stole valuable articles, and threatened to kill the Informant. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the P.S. Case was registered and the investigation started.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that due to a misunderstanding between the

Petitioners and the Informant, the aforesaid F.I.R. was registered by the Opposite Party No.2-Informant. He further contended that as per injury report, the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. Therefore, no case under Section 307 of I.P.C. is made out against the present Petitioners. It was also contended that in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled and the parties have decided to live peacefully in the locality. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioners referred to the affidavit filed by the Informant and Victims as well as the joint compromise affidavit filed before this Court on 01.07.2026. In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that most of the offences are compoundable in nature except offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. He further submitted that since the matter has been amicably settled and that the parties are leaving peacefully and have good relationship, further continuance of the present proceeding would be an abuse of process of law.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.2 to 5-Informant and Victims, on the other hand, while supporting the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, referred to the affidavit filed by the Informant on 25.06.2026 as well as the joint affidavit of the parties dated 01.07.2026 and submitted before this Court that the Petitioners and the Informant as well as the injured belong to the same locality. He further submitted that since the matter has been amicably resolved, the parties are residing peacefully. He further submitted that due to misunderstanding between the parties, the aforesaid FIR has been registered on 29.05.2022. Such dispute arose due to some deficiency in providing for the Informant. However, the dispute has been resolved in the meantime and the injured persons have sustained minor injuries. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 to 5- Informant and Victims submitted before this Court that in the event the entire criminal proceeding is quashed, they will have no objection to the same.

7. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction, from the IIC of the concerned Police Station submitted before this Court that the joint affidavit as well as the affidavit of the Informant have already verified by the I.O. of the concerned police station. He further submitted that he has received instruction with regard to such affidavits and that the I.O. has stated that such affidavits are genuine and the parties are residing in the locality peacefully. It was also admitted that the dispute has amicably resolved between both sides. However, taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the allegation, learned counsel for the State contended that he will have no objection in the event this Court passes any order taking into consideration the aforesaid settlement to secure the ends of justice.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, in course of his argument, referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. decided in Criminal Appeal No.660 of 2025 vide judgment dated 11th

February, 2025 and contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case involving offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., has been pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding on the grounds mentioned in para-20 of the judgment. He further submitted that the grounds that have been cited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are fully applicable to the present case. He further submitted that the Petitioners stand on a better footing since the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. Therefore, the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is not attracted and the other offences are compoundable in nature.

9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, further taking note of the subsequent development in the matter and taking note of the affidavit of the Informant as well as the joint affidavit filed by the parties and on perusal of the instruction received by the learned counsel for the State, this Court is of the view that the compromise arrived at between the parties is a genuine one, on their own volition. Such finding is supported by the report of the IIC of concerned Police Station. It is not disputed that the parties have willingly, on their own volition have arrived at such settlement. In the meantime, several years have elapsed from the date of occurrence of the offence. Moreover, taking into consideration the fact that the matter has been settled on compromise, there is no likelihood of the matter ending up in conviction of the accused. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to secure the ends of justice.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding launched against the Petitioners vide G.R. Case No.704 of 2022, which arises out of Dhenkanal P.S. Case No.322 of 2022, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal, is hereby quashed. The learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal or the court in seisin over the matter shall, on receipt of this order/production of the certified copy of this order, close the proceeding in the aforesaid case in compliance of this order.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

Debasis

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 29-Aug-2026 13:38:14 Signature Not Verified