Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.
Bijay Kumar Nayak And Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Odisha And Another - Respondents
CRLMC No.3177 of 2022, CRLMC No.3583 of 2025, CRLMC No.3584 of 2025
Decided On : 07-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B. Mansinga, Advocate, Ms. D. Behera, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Siva Mohanty, Addl. P. P., Ms. D. Behera, Advocate

Serious offences under Section 307 IPC cannot be quashed based solely on a compromise between the parties, as they are considered crimes against society.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 323, 307, 336, 506, and 34 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - The High Court considered whether to quash the learned J.M.F.C.'s order of cognizance despite a compromise between parties, referencing established precedents that non-compoundable offences, such as Section 307 IPC, cannot be quashed solely on such grounds. (Paras 6, 10, 11)

(B) Compromise in Criminal Proceedings - The court reiterated that serious allegations, particularly under Section 307, are crimes against society and should not be dismissed based on private settlements. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioners sought to quash orders implicating them in serious offences resulting from a physical altercation. Allegations include severe assault, with both parties affirming a compromise, yet the informant did not clearly express a desire to withdraw proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the nature of the allegations and the serious implications of Section 307 required the continuation of proceedings despite the compromise.

Issues: The court addressed whether a compromise could lead to quashing proceedings in light of non-compoundable charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that serious charges like those under Section 307 IPC stay persistent despite informal settlements, and the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing is limited.

Result: Applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenging cognizance order based on political rivalry. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. dispute settled but facts differ on intentions. (Para 5 , 9)
3. non-compoundable offences cannot be quashed by compromise. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11)
4. case dismissed without quashing earlier orders. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of the present application, the Petitioners seek to quash the order dated 10.01.2021 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Aul in G.R. Case No.265 of 2020, whereby cognizance of offences was taken pursuant to Charge-Sheet No.272 dated 30.12.2020 under Sections 341 /323/307/336/506/34 of the IPC, implicating the Petitioners.

2. The present petition is heard together with CRLMC No.3583 of 2025 and CRLMC No.3584 of 2025, as all the three matters emanate from the same series of events alleged to have occurred on 12.07.2020. While CRLMC Nos.3177 of 2022 and 3583 of 2025 assail the order of cognizance dated 10.01.2021 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Aul in G.R. Case No.265 of 2020 arising out of Rajkanika P.S. Case No.157 of 2020, CRLMC No.3584 of 2025 challenges the cognizance order passed in G.R. Case No.266 of 2020 arising out of the connected Rajkanika P.S. Case No.158 of 2020. Both P.S. cases relate to the same occurrence, involve the same set of accused persons, and the allegations are intertwined. The applications, therefore, rest on a substantially similar factual foundation and raise identical grounds regarding the effect of compromise and the applicability of the principles governing quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, both applications are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The background facts of the case, in brief, are that one Saroj Biswal, son of Late Natabar Biswal of village Gomunda under Rajkanika P.S., district Kendrapada, lodged a written report on 19.07.2020, alleging that on 12.07.2020 he had a quarrel with one Ganadhipa Nayak. Though the village gentries repeatedly requested him to resolve the issue amicably, at about 6:30 a.m. on 19.07.2020, while his brother was proceeding through the village danda, the accused persons allegedly intercepted him and assaulted him. On witnessing this, the Informant rushed to the spot, whereupon the accused persons assaulted both brothers by means of kicks and fist blows, pressed his neck and nose, and struck his head with an iron rod with the intention to take his life. As a result of the assault, both sustained bleeding injuries. The information further discloses that the accused persons also threw bottles at them.

4. On the basis of the said report, Rajkanika P.S. Case No.157 of 2020 dated 19.07.2020 was registered for the offences under Sections 341 /323/307/336/354/506/34 of the IPC, and investigation commenced. Upon completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet No.272 dated 30.12.2020 was submitted implicating the Petitioners along with several others.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submitted during the course of hearing that the dispute had arisen out of political rivalry and was subsequently settled between the parties on the intervention of village gentries. The Informant-Opposite Party No.2 has also sworn an affidavit to that effect, filed on 06.09.2025.

6. At this stage, it becomes necessary to take note of the exposition of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh , reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 7 the Supreme Court disapproved the quashing of proceedings involving an offence under Section 307 IPC on the ground of settlement, observing that such offences are non-compoundable and that allegations of a serious nature cannot be nullified merely on the basis of compromise.

“Be that as it may, the fact remains that the accused was facing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 , 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC and that the offences under these sections are not non compoundable offences and, looking t