Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.903 of 2025 CNR No. ODHC010144592025 Babar @ Sarafat Khan and others ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. – Mr. Bijaya Kumar Ragada -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA for the O.P. No.1 Mr. Gangadhar Samal, Advocate for the O.P. Nos.2 to 5. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 01.09.2026 Order No. 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. U.R. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party No.1, and Mr. Gangadhar Samal, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.2 to 5. Perused the CRLMC application with a prayer for quashing of entire criminal proceeding. 3. By filing the present CRLMC application, the Accused- Page 2 of 5. Petitioners in Tigiria P.S. Case No.207 dated 09.09.2024, which was registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 333/296/324(4)/305(a)/351(3)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the same corresponds to C.T. No.201 of 2024, pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Tigiria, have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceeding on the ground that the matter has been settled on compromise between the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that both the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2 are doing business in the same locality and both are having crosser units. He further submitted that there exists a business rivalry between the two, due to which, the present F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2 making exaggerated allegation against the present Petitioners. He further submitted that in the meantime they both have settled their dispute and that they are operating their crosser units smoothly and living in the locality peacefully. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the parties have resolved the dispute amicably and that the Opposite Party No.2-Informant does not want to proceed further in this case, the criminal proceeding be quashed in the larger interest of justice. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.2 to 5, on the other hand, while supporting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, referred to Page 3 of 5. the joint affidavit filed by the parties before this Court on 08.05.2025, which was shown before the Oath Commissioner of this Court. Referring to the aforesaid affidavit, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No.2 to 5 contended before this Court that the F.I.R. was filed under a misconception and suspicion. He further admitted that there exists a misunderstanding between the parties which has led to filing the present F.I.R. The joint affidavit further reveals that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved in the meantime and they have decided to keep good relationship and live peacefully in the locality. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.2-Informant has further contended that the parties are no more interested to proceed further in the matter and, a further submission was made that in the event the application is allowed and criminal proceeding is quashed, he will have no objection to the same. 6. Learned counsel for the State, pursuant to the order passed by this Court earlier, has obtained instruction from the IIC of Tigiria Police Station on the joint affidavit filed by the parties. The IIC, Tigiria, vide its letter dated 07.08.2026, has instructed the office of the Advocate General that pursuant to the instruction received by him, he had verified locally and found that both the Complainant and the Petitioners have crosser units and, due to a business rivalry, Opposite Party No.2 has lodged the F.I.R. against the present Petitioner. He further stated that, at present, they are both running their business peacefully and have a good relationship. He has also specifically stated in the instruction that the parties have amicably settled the dispute in Page 4 of 5. presence of the local villagers. Further, it has been stated that the Opposite Party No.2-Informant does not want to proceed further in this case and that the affidavit which has been filed before this Court is a genuine one and that the same has been sworn by Opposite Party No.2 without any pressure from any quarter. In view of the aforesaid instruction received from the IIC of the Tigiria Police Station, learned counsel for the State submitted that he will have no objection in the event this Court passes any appropriate order to secure the ends of justice. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts of present case, as well as the subsequent development, further taking note of the nature and gravity of the allegation and the fact that the parties have decided to maintain good relationship and are living peacefully in the locality, further taking note of the affidavit of the Opposite Party No.2-Informant that he does not want to proceed further in the present criminal case, this Court is of the view that the further continuance of the present criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of law. 8. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the view that further continuance of the present criminal proceeding not be in the larger interest of justice or either of the parties. Moreover, taking into consideration the fact that the matter has been settled on compromise and that there is no likelihood of the matter ending up in conviction of the accused, this Court is inclined to exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of Page 5 of 5. B.N.S.S., 2023 to secure the ends of justice. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding launched against the Petitioners vide C.T. Case No.201 of 2024, which arises out of Tigiria P.S. Case No.207 of 2024, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Tigiria, is hereby quashed. The learned J.M.F.C., Tigiria 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 Designation: SECRETARY