Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.329 of 2025 Basanta Kumar Patasahani and others ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. – Mr. Akshaya Kumar Subudhi -versus- 1) State of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Pramila Nishanka Represented By Adv. – Mr U.R. Jena, AGA Mr. Pramod Kumar Sejpada, Advocate for the O.P. No.2 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 10.09.2025 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 learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party No.1. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application, the Petitioners seek to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Delanga P.S. Case No.158 of 2017, corresponds to G.R. Case No.337 of 2017, pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Pipili. Page 2 of 4. 4. The above noted case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2-Informant alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 341/323//294/457/354/354(B)/395/506/34 of I.P.C. read with Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that both the Petitioners and the Informant belong to the same locality. He further submitted that due to a political rivalry, the present criminal case was registered at the instance of the Informant making false allegation against the Petitioners. He further submitted that due to intervention of the local gentries and well-wishers of both sides and in a village meeting in presence of village people, the matter has been compromised. He further submitted that a joint affidavit has already been filed by both the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2 indicating the aforesaid facts. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that further continuance of the present criminal proceeding would not serve the ends of justice and the same would be an abuse process of law. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant, on the other hand, while supporting the argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioners to the extent that the dispute between the parties have been resolved on compromise in the village meeting, referred to the affidavit filed by both sides jointly before this Court. Further, referring to the said affidavit, learned counsel for the Informant contended that the F.I.R. was lodged due to a misunderstanding between both sides and they are living in the same locality. Further, emphasizing that after the compromise was arrived at in the village meeting, both sides are now living peacefully in the locality. In such view of the matter, learned Page 3 of 4. counsel for the Informant contended that the further continuance of the present criminal proceeding would neither be in the interest of both the sides nor would it serve the ends of justice. On such ground, learned counsel for the Informant supported the prayer of the Petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceeding. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant. He further submitted that the offences alleged in the F.I.R. are serious in nature. He also submitted that the alleged offences can be construed as a crime against the society. Therefore, this Court should not exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceeding as the same would send a wrong message to the society. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present application is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case as well as the subsequent development, this Court found that although the matter has been compromised as stated by the learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners and the Informant and that such fact is evident from the joint affidavit filed before this Court and considering the nature and gravity of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent power to quash the criminal proceeding. In the aforesaid context, this Court would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, and in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, Page 4 of 4. wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while enumerating the law regarding quashing of the criminal proceeding on the ground of compromise laid down certain principles. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to quash the criminal proceeding as prayed for in the present application. However, while disposing of the present application, this Court directs that since the case is of the year 2017, the trial court shall do well to expedite the trial and to make every endeavour to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months. Parties are directed to cooperate with the trial court 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis