Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Satyananda Parida Vs. State

Satyananda Parida vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Orissa Decided Jan 10, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1119036

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Orissa High Court
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Satyananda Parida

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....challenging the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in c.t.case no.290 of 2012, pending in the court of learned s.d.j.m., deogarh, arising out of kundheigola p.s.case no.48 of 2012, under sections 427/294/336/506 i.p.c.the brief fact of the case is that the informantopposite party no.2 lodged a written report before the kundheigola police station, deogarh, alleging therein that on 05.07.2012, the petitioner damaged the fence of the house of the informant and when his father questioned, the petitioner chased him holding a tangia and threw stone on the petitioner, abusing him and his father in filthy language and criminally intimidated his father. it is stated that due to civil dispute between the parties there are cases and counter cases and the father of the present petitioner has filed written report against the informant and his family members.which has been registered as kundheigola p.s.case no.52 of 2012, under sections 341/447/294 /506/34 i.p.c.it is the case of the petitioner that as the f.i.r.and counter f.i.r.lodged by the parties were due to the civil dispute relating to boundary of their respective residential houses, on the intervention of the village gentries, the matter uks 2 has been amicably settled/compromised between the parties and the petitioner and the informant-opposite party no.2 are no.residing together happily as neighbours without any further dispute. it is submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the informant-opposite party no.2 and the petitioner have sworn affidavits as per annexure-3 series stating therein that they do no.want to continue with the criminal proceeding against each other. accordingly, it is submitted that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties and as the informantopposite party no.2 does no.want to continue with the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner, no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal.....

Full Judgment

CRLMC No.1929 of 2012 & Misc.

Case No.1352 of 2012 04.

10.01.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant-opposite party no.2.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.has been filed challenging the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in C.T.Case No.290 of 2012, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh, arising out of Kundheigola P.S.Case No.48 of 2012, under Sections 427/294/336/506 I.P.C.The brief fact of the case is that the informantopposite party no.2 lodged a written report before the Kundheigola police station, Deogarh, alleging therein that on 05.07.2012, the petitioner damaged the fence of the house of the informant and when his father questioned, the petitioner chased him holding a tangia and threw stone on the petitioner, abusing him and his father in filthy language and criminally intimidated his father.

It is stated that due to civil dispute between the parties there are cases and counter cases and the father of the present petitioner has filed written report against the informant and his family membeRs.which has been registered as Kundheigola P.S.Case No.52 of 2012, under Sections 341/447/294 /506/34 I.P.C.It is the case of the petitioner that as the F.I.R.and counter F.I.R.lodged by the parties were due to the civil dispute relating to boundary of their respective residential houses, on the intervention of the village gentries, the matter uks 2 has been amicably settled/compromised between the parties and the petitioner and the informant-opposite party no.2 are No.residing together happily as neighbours without any further dispute.

It is submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the informant-opposite party no.2 and the petitioner have sworn affidavits as per Annexure-3 series stating therein that they do No.want to continue with the criminal proceeding against each other.

Accordingly, it is submitted that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties and as the informantopposite party no.2 does No.want to continue with the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner, no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner, especially when the chances of his ultimate conviction are bleak.

Learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2 with reference to the affidavit under Annexure-3 series submits that the matter arose out of civil dispute relating to boundary of their respective residential houses.

It is further submitted in the said affidavit that with the help of relatives and villageRs.the dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties and he does No.want to proceed with the case any further.

Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the affidavit of the informant as per Annexure-3 series and as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, I find no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding against the uks 3 petitioner, especially when the chances of his ultimate conviction are bleak.

Accordingly, the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in C.T.Case No.290 of 2012, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh, arising out of Kundheigola P.S.Case No.48 of 2012, under Sections 427/294/ 336/506 I.P.C.and all consequential criminal proceedings are hereby quashed.

CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

Interim order dated 08.08.2012, passed in Misc.

Case No.1352 of 2012 stands vacated.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

………………….…… S.C.Parija, J.

uks

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial