IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.4578 of 2025

1) Shaswat Shubham Sahoo ..... Petitioners

2) Sumit Kumar Sahoo Represented by Adv. –

Mr. Bijay Kumar Sahoo

-versus-

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

2) Sujit Kumar Samal Represented by Adv. –

Ms. Babita Kumari Sahu, AGA

Mr Rashmi Kanta Sahu, Advocate for O.P. No.2

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

08.01.2026 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party No.1, and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant. Perused the application

as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the Petitioners seek to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.T. Case No.89 of 2025, arising out of Malgodown P.S. Case No.60 of 2025, pending in the court of

Presiding Officer, Spl. Court (SC & ST), Cuttack.

4. The above noted P.S. Case was registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/324(3)/303(2)/296/351(3)/49/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 read with Section 3(1)(r)/3(2)(va) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA)

Act, 1989.

5. The factual background leading to the registration of the F.I.R. at the instance of the Informant, in narrow compass, is that the Opposite Party No.2, as an Informant, lodged the F.I.R. before the Malgodown Police Station, inter alia, alleging that he happens to be a second year BBA student of Revenshaw University, Cuttack. On the date of occurrence, there was a function at the J.C. Hostel where the Informant was residing. While the Informant was returning after attaining the function, some students of West Hostel of Revenshaw University assaulted the Informant. Some of the accused persons have been named in the F.I.R. It appears that the accused persons are all second year college students. As a result of the aforesaid assault, the Informant has sustained bleeding injury. Thereafter, the Informant lodged the F.I.R. and the investigation was started. After conclusion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed under the aforesaid sections.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that the Petitioners were falsely implicated under a wrong impression in the present case. He further submitted that the Petitioners were not present at the spot of occurrence when the incident took place. Further, drawing attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2-Informant, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Opposite Party No.2 has categorically stated that due to a misunderstanding, the names of the present Petitioners have been included in the F.I.R., and that the matter has already been settled amicably between the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2-Informant on compromise. As such, the Opposite Party No.2-Informant does not want to proceed further in the present criminal proceeding. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the entire criminal proceeding qua the present Petitioners be quashed in the interest of justice.

7. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant, on the other hand, supported the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. He also referred to the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2-Informant and stated before this Court that the matter has been amicably resolved and that the Opposite Party No.2-Informant does not want to proceed further against the present Petitioners. On such ground, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant submitted that in the event the present criminal proceeding is quashed against the present Petitioners, he will have no objection.

8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although the allegations made in the F.I.R. are serious in nature, however, takin