[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Pravasini Dash & Anr vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ........ Opposite ... on 15 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 1550 of 2025
Pravasini Dash & Anr. ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Deepak Ku. Sahoo, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ........ Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC
Mr. Gagan Bihari Singh, Adv.
(for O.P.2)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
15.04.2026
Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the
cognizance order dated 2.11.2022 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.,
Pattamundai in G.R. Case No.124 of 2022 as well as the criminal
proceeding initiated against him.
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 5.12.2025 has
5. The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by both the parties
is extracted hereunder:
"xxx xxx xxx
"4. That , in the mean time both of our family settled the matter out of court
and we have no interest to proceed further in the above case for which we
both of us filling the above affidavit before this hon'ble court for the
appreciation of the fact and law involve in this case for ends of justice .
5.That ,fact remains we both of us are belongs to one family causin brother to
each other and both of us out of our sweet will settled the matter keeping eye
upon our future time, and if the above case will linger for year together then
misunderstanding will lie over then it will hamper our social relationship so
keeping eye upon our future we both of us join hand together forgetting the
past misunderstanding and we have no interest to proceed further in this
case "
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 Petitioner
in filing a sworn affidavit and has categorically stated that she
does not wish to proceed further with the criminal case and that
the Petitioner is not involved in the alleged occurrence. Thus, the
Court is not proceeding on the basis of a bare compromise alone,
but on the subsequent stand of the complainant herself, 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
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
AIR 2012
Signature NotSUPREME
Verified COURT 499
Digitally Signed
16 SCC 1
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: P.A.
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 15-Apr-2026 18:28:22
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 cognizance order dated 2.11.2022 passed by the
learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai in G.R. Case No.124 of 2022 is
hereby quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding
arising therefrom, i.e., Pattamundai P.S. Case No.124 of 2022,
corresponding to G.R. Case No.124 of 2022 pending before the
learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai, also stands quashed.
13.Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
