AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Mishra, J
The matter was taken for hearing on 15.03.2024 and the following order was passed:
“1. At the instance of the opposite party no.2, the F.I.R. in Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.202 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.726 of 2021 for the offences under Sections-420/34 IPC came to be registered against the petitioners.
The opposite party no.2 is present in the Court today being represented by her counsel. She has also filed photocopy of her self-attested Aadhaar Card to establish her identity, which is taken on record. She has filed an affidavit dated 15.03.2024, inter alia, stating that she has settled her dispute with the petitioners amicably out of the Court and received the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) from the accused persons namely the petitioners. When the petitioners had applied for bail before the learned Court below, the said fact had also been mentioned which is reproduced as under:
“It is submitted by the learned defence counsel that the present accused petitioner is no way connected in the alleged crime and that there is no iota of evidence available to establish the alleged offence against her and that due to some silly matter only to teach a lesson to the accused-petitioner she has been falsely implicated in this case and that she is in custody since 24.06.2022 and that the investigation of the case has progressed substantially. He also submitted that the accused-petitioner is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Chauliaganj Police Station for which there is no chance of her absconding or fleeing away from the course of justice. On the above reasons, the learned defence counsel submitted for release of the present accused-petitioner on bail particularly when the dispute between the informant and accused has been settled outside the Court and in the meantime the informant had received Rs.3,00,000/-.
On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P. objected the bail application and pressed for its rejection.
The informant who is present in Court submitted that the dispute between her with the accused has already been settled and she has received demand draft of Rs.3,00,000/- from the daughter of the accused towards full and final payment of the money received by the accused earlier from her to sell the land.”
Mr. Ragada, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that though the parties have settled their dispute and the complainant being the opposite party no.2 is present in the Court today and endorsed the fact, but in the absence of the accused persons, the same should not be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the presence of the opposite party no.2 may be dispensed with and the petitioner no.1 who is a heart patient is not present in the Court today. On the next date of hearing, they would remain present in the Court.
Since the parties have settled their dispute and the opposite party no.2 has already received a draft of Rs.3,00,000/- to her satisfaction, she does not want to proceed against the petitioners. Therefore, the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. However, the matter is adjourned to
03.2024 for appearance of the accused persons.
List this matter on 20.03.2024.
The personal appearance of the opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.”
Since the petitioners had not appeared on the last date of hearing, the matter was adjourned. The opposite party no.2 had already appeared before the Court and filed necessary affidavit and made a statement that she does not want to proceed against the petitioners. Therefore, a detailed order was passed on the last date of hearing.
The petitioners are present in person in the Court today. They are being represented by their counsel. They have also filed photocopies of their respective self-attested Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. They conjointly pray that the F.I.R. registered against them by the opposite party no.2 may be quashed on the ground of settlement.
Mr. Ragada, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1-State submits that in view of the order passed on the last date of hearing and in view of the fact that the petitioners have appeared in the present case before the Court in person, indulgence may be given to the petitioners.
Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned counsels for the parties at the Bar, the F.I.R. in Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.202 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.726 of 2021 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C.-IV, Cuttack and the consequential proceeding arising therefrom are quashed.
The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
……………………………