CRLMC No. 3068 of 2022 Page 1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3068 of 2022 An Application under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 1. Nalini Prava Behera (dead) 2. Mr. Bhabasis Mohapatra &. Petitioners -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Mr. Mahefuj Alam &. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode : For Petitioners : Mr. Srinibash Satapathy, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. J. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opposite Party No.1) Mr. Sapan Kumar Lenka, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.2) CORAM: HON9BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ...&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Date of Hearing: 31.03.2026 Date of Judgment: 31.03.2026 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&.... Savitri Ratho, J. The CRLMC has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceeding in CT Case No.386 of 2021 pending in the Court of the learned SDJM, Baleswar, which arises out of Sahadev Khunta PS Case No.148 dtd.14.05.2021, for the commission of offences under Sections 420, 417, 294, 323 and 506 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner. CRLMC No. 3608 of 2022 ALLEGATIONS IN BRIEF 2. The Opposite Party No.2 filed 1CC Case No.191/2021 before the SDJM, Baleswar alleging he was a tenant of the petitioners and had taken house of the petitioners on monthly rent to run a shop. As he did not make payment of house rent for a period of 6 months rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, the Petitioner No.2 asked him to vacate the house. Thereafter the Opposite Party No.2 vacated the house on 15.05.2020 and made demand for refund the security amount of Rs.1,00,000/- but the petitioners asked him to come on 20.06.2020. On 20.07.2020, when the informant made demand for refund of the security amount, the petitioners abused the opposite party No.2 in filthy language. Again on 03.02.2021 at about 11 AM, when the Opposite party No.2 went to ask the Petitioner No.2 for refund of money, both the petitioners denied to refund the money and abused him in filthy language and the petitioner No.2 assaulted him by means of fist blows and threatened him of dire consequence. The opposite party No.2 went to lodge FIR, but as the police did not register his written complaint as FIR, he filed 1CC Case No.-191 of 2021 before the learned SDJM, Baleswar. The learned SDJM, Baleswar, sent the complaint case to IIC, Sahadevkhunta Police Station under Section CRLMC No. 3608 of 2022 156(2) of CRPC and thereafter Sahadev Khunta PS Case No.-148 dated 14.05.2021 was registered against the petitioners for the commission of offences U/s-420, 417, 294, 323 and 506 and 34 of IPC. SUBMISSIONS 3. Mr. Srinibash Satapathy, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits, the Opposite Party No.2 at the time of agreement had given a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioners towards security, which was refundable at the time of closure of tenancy. But at the time of vacating house, the Opposite Party No.2 had damaged the door and fittings of the house and had not paid the rent for some months, so the Petitioner No.2 had offered to return the balance amount after adjusting arrear house rent and damage amount of Rs. 17,000/-. But Opposite Party No.2 did not agree to that and filed the complaint making false allegations. But the matter has been amicably settled between the parties for which this CRLMC has been filed. He refers to the joint affidavit dated 30.03.2026 of Petitioner No.2- Mr. Bhabasis Mohapatra and Opposite Party No.2- Mr. Mahefuj Alam filed on 30.03.2026. It is stated in the affidavit that the Petitioner No.1 has died in the meanwhile. It is also stated that the petitioners have paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the Opposite Party No.2 through online CRLMC No. 3608 of 2022 mode and Rs.60,000/- has been retained by the petitioners towards arrear rent and damages and Opposite Party No.2 has no further claim against the petitioners. It is also stated in the affidavit that the proceedings in Sahadevkhunta PS Case No. 148 of 2021 corresponding to CT Case No.386 of 2021 pending in the Court of the learned SDJM, Balasore may be quashed by this Court and the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion undue influence or pressure from any quarter. Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel further submits that in view of the amicable settlement between the parties and considering the fact that the dispute is essentially of civil nature arising out of a landlord-tenant relationship, continuation of the criminal proceeding would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law. 4. Mr. S. K. Lenka, learned counsel for the complainant-Opposite Party No.2 submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the complainant does not want to proceed further in the case as he has get refund of amount of Rs.40,000/- out of the security deposit of Rupees one lakh. 5. Mr. S. J. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State submits that in view of settlement between the parties, this Court can quash the CRLMC No. 3608 of 2022 proceedings as the dispute in question primarily relates to payment of rent which is a private dispute. ANALYSIS 6. A perusal of the complaint which has been treated as the FIR reveals that the dispute between the parties was in the nature of a civil dispute as the main dispute related to refund of the amount given towards security deposit. Other allegations regarding use of abusive language, assault and threats seem to secondary. But a case was registered at the Police Station pursuant to direction of the learned Magistrate and after completion of investigation charge sheet submitted. 7. In the compromise agreement and affidavit dated 16.09.2022, the complainant-Opposite Party No.2 has categorically stated that he does not want to proceed in CT Case No.386 of 2021 against the petitioners, so the criminal proceeding against the petitioners, will be a futile exercise and wastage of precious time and resources of the Court if it is allowed to continue. Petitioner No.1 has died in the meantime but Petitioner No.2 will be put to unnecessary harassment and hardship if he is compelled to face trial when chances of conviction in view of the settlement are bleak. Hence, I am satisfied CRLMC No. 3608 of 2022 that to prevent abuse of process of Court, Sahadebkhunta P.S. Case No.148 dtd.14.05.2021 which corresponds to CT Case No.386 of 2021 in the Court of the learned SDJM, Baleswar and consequential criminal proceeding should be quashed. This would be in the interest of justice. CONCLUSION 8. The CRLMC is allowed and the proceedings in CT Case No.386 of 2021 in the Court of the learned SDJM, Baleswar which arises out of Sahadev Khunta PS Case No.148 of 2021 are quashed. 9. Copy of this order be sent to the learned SDJM, Baleswar. 10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. &&&&&&&. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 31st March, 2026/Subhalaxmi/RKS