Sudam Charan Barik Vs. State and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. - in such circumstances this court as well as the apex court have exercised inherent power under section 482, cr pc to quash the cognizance order and drop the case. 104 of 1993 disposed of on 18-3-1993. 4. considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the decisions in the aforementioned decided cases, i am satisfied that this is a fit case for exercising of inherent jurisdiction of this court for dropping the criminal case which, as i see, will be in the interest of justice and will serve the ends of justice......of sri panda was that as the injury report shows, all the injuries sustained by the informant are simple in nature and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety the parties have decided to settle their dispute and live in peace. in such circumstances this court as well as the apex court have exercised inherent power under section 482, cr pc to quash the cognizance order and drop the case. shri panda relied on the decision of the apex court reported in air 1998 sc 2111 (mahesh chand and anr. v. state of rajasthan) and the order passed by this court in criminal misc. case no. 104 of 1993 disposed of on 18-3-1993.4. considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the decisions in the aforementioned decided cases, i am satisfied that this is a fit case for exercising of inherent jurisdiction of this court for dropping the criminal case which, as i see, will be in the interest of justice and will serve the ends of justice. 'accordingly,, the cognizance order passed by the learned magistrate on 14-2-1992 in g.r. case no. 67 of 1991 is quashed. the criminal case is dropped. the lower court record be returned forthwith.5. the.....

Judgment:

ORDER

D.P. Mohapatra, J.

1. Heard Shri P. Panda for the petitioners, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for opp. party No. 1 and Shri S. K. Mishra for opp. party No. 2.

2. The twenty-eight petitioners who are arraigned as accused in G.R. Case No. 67 of 1991 pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banpur filed this application under Sec; 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate and for dropping the case against them on the ground that the parties in the meantime have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. The informant was cited as opp. party No, 2 in the case. On the first information report lodged by him, G.R. Case No, 67 of 1991 was registered and by order dated 14-2-1992, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences Under Sections 147/148/452/332/342/307/149, 1PC. The cognizance was taken for the offence Under Section 307, IPC which is non-compoundabla and triable exclusively by the Court of Session. The petitioners have approached this Court for intervention Under Section 482, Cr PC.

3. The thrust of the submissions of Sri Panda was that as the injury report shows, all the injuries sustained by the informant are simple in nature and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety the parties have decided to settle their dispute and live in peace. In such circumstances this Court as well as the Apex Court have exercised inherent power Under Section 482, Cr PC to quash the cognizance order and drop the case. Shri Panda relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 2111 (Mahesh Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan) and the order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 104 of 1993 disposed of on 18-3-1993.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the decisions in the aforementioned decided cases, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for exercising of inherent jurisdiction of this Court for dropping the criminal case which, as I see, will be in the interest of justice and will serve the ends of justice. 'Accordingly,, the cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate on 14-2-1992 in G.R. Case No. 67 of 1991 is quashed. The Criminal case is dropped. The lower Court record be returned forthwith.

5. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of Crl. misc. case disposed of.