[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Soumya Ranjan Bijay Kumar Patra vs State Of Odisha & Anr. ........ Opposite ... on 9 April, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                   CRLMC No. 882 of 2026

                             Soumya Ranjan Bijay Kumar Patra
                             & Another                              ........    Petitioner(s)
                                                            Mr. Bhabani Shankar Pradhan, Adv.

                                                         -Versus-
                             State of Odisha & Anr.                 ........ Opposite Party(s)
                                                                          Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
                                                                       Mr. Gangadhar Samal, Adv.
                                                                                      (for O.P.2)
                                     CORAM:
                                     DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                                    ORDER

09.04.2026 Order No.

03.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioners have filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the

criminal proceeding initiated against them in Aul P.S. Case

No.238 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.238 of 2021,

pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Aul.

4. 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 30.01.2026 has

been filed by both the parties.

5. The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by the parties is

extracted hereunder:

"xxx xxx xxx "1. That due to intervention of well-wishers from the both sides, we have reconciled the ill feelings and disputes among us. Accordingly, we have decided not to proceed with the respective cases pending before different courts including the present criminal proceeding which is sought to be quashed.

2. That in terms of amicable settlement arrived between us, it has been agreed upon to pay Rs.11,50,000 (eleven lakhs fifty thousand ) in shape of bank draft in favor of opposite party No. 2 towards permanent alimony and consequentially the execution proceeding vide Civil Execution ease No. 68 of 2024 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court II, Bhubaneswar, the DV proceeding vide CMC No. 625 of 2021 pending before the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar and the present criminal proceeding pending before the learned JMFC, Aul will be withdrawn by opposite party no.2 and/or file appropriate affidavit for quashing of the same before this Hon'ble Court. Similarly the petitioner No. 1 will take step for withdrawal of CMA No. 07 of 2025 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court II, Bhubaneswar.

3. That in view of the above amicable settlement, the petitioners file herewith the Bank Draft No.004588 dated 05.03.2026 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. in favour of the opposite party No.2 namely Anuradha Khuntia for an amount of Rs.l 1,50,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Fifty Thousand only) before this Hon'ble Court towards permanent alimony of the opposite party No.2. It is humbly submitted that since the opposite party No.2 is maintaining account in the name of Anuradhan Khuntia, daughter of Srinnibas Khuntia, the present draft has been prepared in the name of Anuradha Khuntia. Further, we are filing the present joint affidavit for quashing of the Criminal Proceeding i.e., G.R. Case No.238 of 2021, corresponding to Aul P.S. Case No. 121 of 2021 pending before the learned JMFC, Aul. As per agreed terms, we will produce the present joint affidavit before the learned Judge, Family Court 11, Bhubaneswar for withdrawal of Civil Execution case No. 68 of 2024 filed by the opposite party no.2 and CMA No. 07 of 2025 filed by the petitioner no.l. Similarly, the opposite party no.2 will also produce the present joint affidavit before the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar for withdrawal of CMC No. 625 of 2021 filed under section 12 of PWDV Act.

opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case. In view of the

above, for the ends of justice as well as to prevent the abuse of process of law, the criminal proceeding i.e., G.R. Case No.238 of 2021, corresponding to Aul P.S. Case No. 121 of 2021 pending before the learned JMFC, Aul may be quashed against the petitioners in its entirety by exercising the inherent power of this Hon'ble Court."

6. This Court has considered the joint affidavit filed by both parties

and is conscious of the settled legal position that the inherent

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is distinct

from the power of compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C., and

may be invoked to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse

of the process of Court. At the same time, such power is not to be

exercised mechanically merely because the parties have arrived at

a settlement; the Court is required to examine the nature and

gravity of the allegations, the real genesis of the dispute, the stage

of the proceeding, and whether, in view of the stand now taken

by the victim, the possibility of conviction has become remote

and continuation of the prosecution would amount to futility or

oppression.

7. In the present case, Opposite Party No.2 has joined the Petitioners

in filing a sworn affidavit and has categorically stated that she

does not wish to proceed further with the criminal case and that

the Petitioners are not involved in the alleged occurrence. Thus,

the Court is not proceeding on the basis of a bare compromise

which substantially erodes the factual substratum of the

prosecution. Having regard to the materials on record, the stage

of the case, and the unequivocal position taken by the

complainant, this Court is satisfied that the possibility of a

successful conviction is remote and bleak, and that continuation

of the impugned proceeding would serve no useful purpose but

would instead amount to abuse of the process of law.

8. In light of the aforesaid, and applying the same to the facts of the

present case, this Court is of the considered view that the

continuance of the impugned criminal proceeding would amount

to an abuse of the process of Court and would not subserve the

ends of justice.

9. In fact, in the case of Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika1 the Supreme

Court has held that even where an offence is non-compoundable,

quashing may still be justified if there is no realistic chance of

conviction and continuance is an empty formality. The Court held

as follows:

"It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before

1 Authentication

AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 Location: OHC Date: 10-Apr-2026 15:01:31

the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other."

10.Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case Manoj

Sharma v. State2 wherein the Court held as follows:

"It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other."

11.Tested against the aforesaid principles and the facts of the present

case, this Court finds that allowing the prosecution to continue

would be futile and would amount to an abuse of the process of

law.

12.In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed.

Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in Aul P.S. Case No. 121 of

2021 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal

proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., G.R. Case No.238 of 2021

pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Aul, also stands quashed.

2 Authentication

(2008) 16 SCC 1 Location: OHC Date: 10-Apr-2026 15:01:31

13.Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.