HARAMOHAN MALIK Vs. DANDAPANI MUDULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 20. 3. 2008 passed by the learned S. D. J. M. , Nayagarh in I. C. C. No. 115 of 2000 rejecting an application filed by the complainant-petitioner under Section 257, cr. P. C. for withdrawal of the complaint.

(2.) MR. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the dispute between the parties has been sorted out, the complainant-petitioner does not want to prosecute the case and he wants to withdraw the complaint. He accordingly filed a petition under Section 257 Cr. P. C. , but the learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected that petition on the ground that the offence under Section 3 (l) (x) (xi) of the SC and st (PA) Act of which cognizance has been taken is exclusively triable by the Court of sessions and Section 257 Cr. P. C. which comes under Chapter XX of the Cr. P. C. deals with trial of summons cases and is not applicable to the present case. It is submitted that since the dispute has been amicably settled, no fruitful purpose will be served by allowing the proceeding to continue. A joint affidavit sworn to by the complainant- petitioner and the accused-opposite parties has been filed. It is averred therein that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably and parties are living peacefully and therefore in the interest of both the parties the proceeding may be dropped. It is further averred that in the meantime the case has been committed to the Court of sessions and is now pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in s. T. Case No. 93 of 2008. In support of the prayer, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Sk, Khairur alias Sk. Khairul and others v. Kanhu Bar; kinakrushna v. Smt. Sunanda Behera and sridhar Pani v. State of Orissa and another.

(3.) PERUSED the records and the aforesaid decisions. It appears that the complaint was filed by the petitioner against the opposite parties under Sections 447/354/294/34 IPC and Section 3 (l) (x) (xi) of the SC and ST (PA)Act. After settlement of dispute, a petition was filed for withdrawal of the complaint. But the same was rejected on the ground stated above. Considering the joint affidavit filed by the parties and the submissions made on their behalf, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served by allowing the proceeding to continue. Therefore, by applying the ratio decided in the cases cited above, this Court quashes the proceeding in ST Case No. 93 of 2008 pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nayagarh.