CRLMC/2730/2026 of RAJIB KUMAR TRIPATHY Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 18 August 2026

ORDER

18.08.2026 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 Informant-Opposite Party No.2 and learned counsel for the State. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The accused in G.R. Case No.889 of 2026 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C.(R) Cog, Berhampur which corresponds to Nimakhandi P.S. Case No.143 of 2026, which was registered for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the BNS, 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

Informant.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Opposite Party No.2, being aggrieved by the conduct of the Petitioner in not disbursing his share of the family property, filed an FIR before Nimakhandi P.S. which was registered as P.S. Case No.143 dated 16.05.2026 for alleged commission of offences as has been indicated in the preceding paragraph. In his complaint, the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 has made allegation against the present Petitioner to the extent that the mother of the Informant had executed a power of attorney in favor of the Petitioner in respect of transfer of a land for a sum of rupees 2.4 crores. The Petitioner had paid a sum of rupees 1.5 crores to the mother of the Informant- Opposite Party No.2 during her lifetime. Since the Petitioner had not paid the balance amount to the mother of the Informant or the Informant-Opposite Party No.2, alleging cheating and fraud, the aforesaid FIR was lodged implicating the Petitioner as an accused therein. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the aforesaid FIR was registered due to a misunderstanding between the Petitioner and the Informant-Opposite Party No.2. He further contended that in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled, and that the Petitioner has paid the balance amount to the Opposite Party No.2. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 at flag-A to the brief. Referring to the aforesaid affidavit, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that both the Petitioner as well as the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 have agreed to resolve the dispute on compromise and subject to the Petitioner paying a sum of rupees forty lakhs to the Opposite Party No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 did not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He further submitted that in view of the affidavit filed by the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 the dispute has been amicably settled and that the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 does not want to proceed further against the present Petitioner in the present criminal proceeding. He further contended that the Opposite Party No.2 will have no objection in the event this Court quashes the entire criminal proceeding.

6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the statement of the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 has been recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 183 of BNSS. A certified copy of the statement of the Informant was produced before this Court, the same is taken on record. On perusal of the statement of the Informant under Section 183 of BNSS, this Court observes that the Informant has specifically admitted before the learned Magistrate that he has received a sum of rupees forty lakhs in the shape of a demand draft and that the matter has been amicably settled between the Petitioner and the Informant-Opposite Party No.2. Further, it appears that he has categorically stated that he doesn't want to proceed further in the present case and that he will have no further claim in future against the Petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction from the IIC Nimakhandi P.S., Berhampur dated 17.08.2026, while producing a copy of such instruction, stated before this Court that the said IIC enquired into the matter and has stated that the matter has been amicably settled as is evident from the affidavit of the Informant- Opposite Party No.2. Furthermore, the Petitioner has paid the money through demand draft which has been received by the Informant.

8. On a careful analysis of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, further on a close scrutiny of the factual background of the present case as well as taking note of the subsequent development, particularly the affidavit filed by the Informant-Opposite Party No.2, the statement of the Informant recorded under section 183 of the BNSS and the instruction of the IIC, Nimakhandi P.S. dated 17.08.2026, this Court has no doubt that the dispute has been settled amicably on compromise and that a sum of rupees forty lakhs has already been paid by the Petitioner to the Informant-Opposite Party No.2. Moreover, it is a specific stand of the Opposite Party No.2 that he doesn't want to proceed further against the Petitioner in the present criminal case. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that the further continuance of the present criminal proceeding would be an abuse of process of law. Moreover, the present case falls within the parameters of rarest of rare case where this Court could exercise its inherent power to bring an end to the dispute between the parties to secure the ends of justice. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to quash the entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.889 of 2026, pending before the learned J.M.F.C.(R) Cog, Berhampur.

9. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

Judge

S.K. Rout

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Aug-2026 14:20:04 Signature Not Verified