IMPORTANT POINT
A redundant criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue.

ORDER

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.—These matters are taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. These two matters have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of two separate FIRs and consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties concerned.

3. The CRLMC No.2370 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them vide Simulia P.S. Case No.233 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. Case No.710 of 2020 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Soro.

4. The CRLMC No.3223 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them vide Simulia P.S. Case No.232 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. Case No.709 of 2020 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Soro.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. F.I.R. No.233 of 2020 came to be registered on 26.09.2020 under Sections 294/307/323/325/341/506/34 of the I.P.C. at the instance of the informant on the allegations that while the informant’s husband was present at Barahpur Chhak, Petitioner No.1 along with other Petitioners abused him in filthy languages and assaulted him by means of wooden planks, plastic pipe and bamboo lathi. In the meantime, informant’s brother-in-law getting information rushed to the spot and seeing the informant’s condition raised hullah. Hearing hullah, her elder brother-in-law arrived at the spot. The accused persons also abused them in filthy languages and assaulted them. As such they all sustained grievous bleeding injuries.

7. F.I.R. No.232 of 2020 came to be registered on 26.09.2020 under Sections 294/323/325/341/506/34 of the I.P.C. at the instance of the informant on the allegation that the informant was present in the shop at Barahpur Bazar. Due to previous grudge, the Petitioners called the informant out of the shop and abused him in obscene languages and assaulted him by means of Bhujali and lathi.

8. The charge sheet has been filed in both the matters and the charges have also been framed. It is stated that the parties have since amicably settled the matter and are no longer interested in pursuing the same.

9. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that, in the interregnum, the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. In support thereof, a joint affidavit dated 06.04.2026 is filed in Court today, which is taken on record.

10. The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by both the parties is extracted hereunder:

“xxx xxx xxx

5. That, in the meantime with the help of village gentries and well wishers matter was compromise by both the parties and they are living peacefully. After compromising both parties are executed joint affidavit before the Notary Public, Khaira, Balasore on dtd. 31.03.2026.

11. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances and since the parties have amicably settled the matter amongst themselves and are no longer interested in supporting the prosecution; no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.

12. Consequently and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

“58. …....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of it