p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.799 of 2025 Akshaya Kumar Chand & Anr. …. Appellant(s) Mr. P.K. Mishra, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Respondent(s) Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA (for O.P. No.1) Mr. J.K. Panda, Adv. (for O.P. No.2) CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 03. ORDER 09.02.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing the CRLA, the Appellants have challenged the order of cognizance dated 10.04.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri for the offence under Sections 294/500/506/507 of the I.P.C., Section 66(C) of the I.T. Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 in Special G.R. Case No.240 of 2023 corresponding to Chitrakonda P.S. Case No.228 of 2023. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the Respondent No.2 lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Chitrakonda Police Station on 02.12.2023, alleging therein that on 13.11.2023, Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Feb-2026 20:18:21 Signature Not Verified p. 2 both the Appellants had committed robbery from one liquor merchant, for which a case was registered at Chitrakonda Police Station. It was also alleged in the said F.I.R. that Appellant No.1, suspecting the publication of said news by the Respondent No.2, being a reporter of Pragatibadi, had threatened him over phone. It was further alleged that the Appellant No.1 abused Respondent No.2 over the phone by uttering his caste. Hence, the present case. 5. Based on the F.I.R., the I.I.C., Chitrakonda P.S. registered the case and after completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet against the Appellants for the offence under Sections 294/500/506/507 of the I.P.C., Section 66(C) of the I.T. Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989. Upon receipt of the charge sheet, the learned trial Court took cognizance vide order dated 10.04.2025, which is impugned herein. 6. Today, the Appellants as well as Respondent No.2 are present in person before this Court along with their respective identity proof. They have also filed a joint affidavit dated 09.02.2026, inter alia, stating as follows: “1. That, the deponents are the informant/victim/ Respondent No.2 and Appellants respectively in this case. 2. That, the Appellants filed this Criminal Appeal with prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 10.04.2025. Page 3 of 5 3. That the informant/victim/Respondent No.2 namely Bholanath Mallick does not want to contest the case. 4. That we are filing this affidavit without being biased or influenced by any one and with our free will and if the proceeding will continue our professional carrier may be affected. 5. That the facts stated above are true to the best of our knowledge and belief.” The said affidavit dated 09.02.2026 is taken on record. 7. In view of the joint affidavit, learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and they do not wish to proceed further with the criminal case and, accordingly, prays for quashing the proceedings. 8. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for Respondent No.2 fairly submit that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and have jointly filed the affidavit before this Court. 9. In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another1, and two other reported cases of this Court in Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four others v. State of Orissa and four others2, and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and another – v.- State of Orissa and Another3, wherein the Supreme Court as well as this Court are of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in allowing such proceedings to 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 2014 (II) OLR 29 3 2014 (II) OLR 452 p. 4 continue the criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case as it will only lead to abuse the process of law. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly considering the amicable settlement arrived at between the Appellants and Respondent No.2 and taking into account the joint affidavit filed before this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the present criminal proceeding would not serve the interest of justice and would amount to abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS), this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made by the Appellants. 11. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.04.2025 taking cognizance of the offences is hereby quashed and the entire criminal proceeding in Special G.R. Case No.240 of 2023 (arising out of Chitrakonda P.S. Case No.228 dated 02.12.2023), pending before the learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Malkangiri, stands quashed. 12. Accordingly, this CRLA is disposed of. 13. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 14. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. 15. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Page 5 of 5 16. A copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial Court for information. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun