IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3475 of 2025

1) Niranjan Majhi ..... Petitioners

2) Malaya Majhi Represented by Adv. –

3) Suresh Barik @ Majhi Mr. Prasanta Kumar

4) Madhia Majhi @ Susanta Barik Sahoo

5) Raju @ Laxmikanta Samal -versus-

1) State of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties

2) Sangram Dhal Represented by Adv. –

Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC M/s. Bikash Behari Pattnaik, S. Pradhan (For O.P. No.2)

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

11.12.2025 Order No.

03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant & Injured, 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 under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the Petitioners seek to invoke the inherent power this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding involved in G.R. Case No.1555 of 2025, arising out of Tihidi P.S. Case No.239 of 2025, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak.

4. The above noted criminal case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. dated 11.07.2025 lodged at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2-Informant for alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/118(1)/109(1)/296/351(2)/3(5) of B.N.S., 2023. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that both the Petitioners as well as the Opposite Party No.2 are known to each other. He further contended that due a misunderstanding between the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2, the aforesaid F.I.R. has been registered at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2-Informant. He further contended that in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the parties are residing peacefully in the locality. In support of his contention, he has also referred to the joint affidavit filed before this Court on 19.09.2025 sworn before the Notary Public. In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the further continuance of the above noted criminal proceeding would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, he prayed that the entire criminal proceeding be quashed taking into consideration the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and the parties are living peacefully in the locality.

6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant supported the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners. In course of argument, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2- Informant also referred to the joint affidavit filed by both the Petitioners and the Informant. On perusal of such affidavit, it appears that the Opposite Party No.2-Informant has admitted the amicable settlement of the matter and that they are living peacefully in the locality. He further submitted that Opposite Party No.2-Informant will have no objection in the event the entire criminal proceeding is quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, he had taken instruction from the IIC of Tihidi P.S. Further, referring to the instruction of the IIC of Tihidi P.S. vide letter dated 05.11.2025, learned counsel for the State contended that the IIC of Tihidi P.S. enquired into the matter as well as the joint affidavit filed by the parties. On enquiry, the IIC found that the Opposite Party No.2-Informant has given his consent in the affidavit. Learned counsel for the State referring to the injury report in the case diary, stated before this Court that injury sustained by the injured are simple in nature. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that he will have no objection in the event this Court pass any order to secure the ends of justice.

8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as w