NARENDRANATH DAS & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jyoti Prakash Patra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Asit Kumar Jena, learned counsel for the informant. This is an application filed by the petitioners Narendranath Das and his wife Basanti @ Minamani Das under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order dated 23.08.2011 of the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore passed in C.T. Case No.1170 of 2010 in taking cognizance of offences punishable under sections 341, 294, 323, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. (POA) Act, 1989. The said case arises out of Remuna P.S. Case No.90 of 2010.

(2.) The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report lodged by one Gagan Das, son of late Nalu Das of village Fartipur, P.S. -Remuna, Dist -Balasore before Inspector in Charge, Remuna Police Station is that on 17.07.2010 at about 8.00 a.m. relating to a petty matter, the petitioner no.1 abused the informant in the name of his caste. The petitioners and their two sons assaulted the informant by means of slaps and fist blows. The petitioner no.1 assaulted the informant by means of a bamboo lathi for which the later sustained bleeding injury. When the wife of the informant arrived at the spot, she was pushed by the petitioner no.1 who also tried to outrage her modesty but she fled away from the spot. The accused persons also threatened the informant with dire consequence. On the basis of such First Information Report, Remuna P.S. Case No. 90 of 2010 was registered on 17.07.2010 under sections 341/294/323/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently the investigation of the case was taken over by D.S.P. who after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet on 07.08.2011 against the petitioners under sections 341/294/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST (P.A.) Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners and the informant belonged to same village and over a petty dispute between the parties on the date of occurrence, the case was instituted. He further contended that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in view of such settlement of the dispute, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to continue inasmuch as the chance of conviction of the petitioners is bleak and therefore, it is a fit case where this Court should exercise its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceeding. Learned counsel for the informant has filed an affidavit of the informant wherein it is indicated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the informant does not want to proceed further with the case. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer made in the application filed by the petitioners and contended that since the offence under section 3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST (PA) Act is not compoundable, therefore, invoking power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the proceeding cannot be quashed.