[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Kailash Chandra Ghose & vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 6 April, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                   CRLMC No.2370 of 2025

                                     Kailash Chandra Ghose &
                                     Ors.                           ....            Petitioner(s)

                                                                  Mr. Basanta Kumar Das, Adv.
                                                                -versus-
                                     State of Odisha & Ors.         ....     Opposite Party(s)

                                                                    Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
                                                  Mr. Brundaban Rout, Adv. (for O.P. Nos.2 to 7)

                                                   CRLMC No.3223 of 2025

                                     Bharat Charan Dutta @
                                     Bharat Dutta & Ors.            ....            Petitioner(s)

                                                                     Mr. Brundaban Rout, Adv.
                                                                -versus-
                                     State of Odisha & Anr.         ....     Opposite Party(s)

                                                                      Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA

                                            CORAM:
                                            HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                                                                ORDER

Order No. 06.04.2026

1. These matters are taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. These two matters have been filed under Section

482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of two separate FIRs and

consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground

that the matter has been settled between the parties

concerned.

3. The CRLMC No.2370 of 2025 has been filed by the

Petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings

initiated against them vide Simulia P.S. Case No.233 of 2020

corresponding to C.T. Case No.710 of 2020 pending before

the learned J.M.F.C., Soro.

4. The CRLMC No.3223 of 2025 has been filed by the

Petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings

initiated against them vide Simulia P.S. Case No.232 of 2020

corresponding to C.T. Case No.709 of 2020 pending before

the learned J.M.F.C., Soro.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. F.I.R. No.233 of 2020 came to be registered on 26.09.2020

under Sections 294/307/323/325/341/506/34 of the I.P.C. at

the instance of the informant on the allegations that while

the informant's husband was present at Barahpur Chhak,

Petitioner No.1 along with other Petitioners abused him in

filthy languages and assaulted him by means of wooden

planks, plastic pipe and bamboo lathi. In the meantime,

informant's brother-in-law getting information rushed to

the spot and seeing the informant's condition raised hullah.

Hearing hullah, her elder brother-in-law arrived at the spot.

The accused persons also abused them in filthy languages

and assaulted them. As such they all sustained grievous

bleeding injuries.

7. F.I.R. No.232 of 2020 came to be registered on 26.09.2020

under Sections 294/323/325/341/506/34 of the I.P.C. at the

instance of the informant on the allegation that the

informant was present in the shop at Barahpur Bazar. Due

to previous grudge, the Petitioners called the informant out

of the shop and abused him in obscene languages and

assaulted him by means of Bhujali and lathi.

8. The charge sheet has been filed in both the matters and

the charges have also been framed. It is stated that the

parties have since amicably settled the matter and are no

longer interested in pursuing the same.

9. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that, in

the interregnum, the dispute between the parties has been

amicably settled. In support thereof, a joint affidavit dated

06.04.2026 is filed in Court today, which is taken on record.

10. The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by both

the parties is extracted hereunder:

"xxx xxx xxx

5. That, in the meantime with the help of village gentries and well wishers matter was compromise by both the parties and they are living peacefully. After compromising both parties are executed joint affidavit before the Notary Public, Khaira, Balasore on dtd. 31.03.2026.

11. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall

circumstances and since the parties have amicably settled

the matter amongst themselves and are no longer

interested in supporting the prosecution; no useful purpose

will be served in continuing with these proceedings.

12. Consequently and looking to the decision of the

Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab1, which

has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that

even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on

the basis of a settlement between the offender and the

victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as

under:

"58.......However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."

(2012) 10 SCC 303

13. Similarly, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab

& Anr.2 where the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(i) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

(ii) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(iii) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,

Decided in Criminal Appeal No.686 of 2014 on 27.03.2014

dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

(iv) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

(v) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

(vi) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether

such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

(vii) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at

the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

14. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is the

considered opinion that these matters deserve to be given a

quietus at this stage itself since the parties concerned have

settled the matter amongst themselves and are no longer

inclined to support the prosecution in respect of their

respective FIRs, thereby diminishing the chances of its

success.

15. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed. F.I.R.

vide Simulia P.S. Case No.233 of 2020 registered under

Sections 294/307/323/325/341/506/34 of the I.P.C.

corresponding to C.T. Case No.710 of 2020 & F.I.R. vide

Simulia P.S. Case No.232 of 2020 registered under Sections