[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Tripati Satapathy vs State Of Odisha ........ Opposite ... on 15 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 4504 of 2025
Tripati Satapathy ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Dash, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha ........ Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
15.04.2026
Order No.
05.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for
quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him
vide Kodala P.S. Case No.06 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case
No.23 of 2022 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, in the
interregnum, the dispute between the parties has been amicably
settled. In support thereof, an affidavit dated 18.01.2022 has been
filed vide Annexure-4.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the
informant has sworn the affidavit dated 18.01.2022 in B.A. 05 of
2022 before the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Khalikote stating therein that the FIR was lodged due to
misunderstanding, the matter had been amicably compromised
and he did not wish to proceed with the case.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the
informant has died on 11.03.2025 and his wife has also passed
away thereafter. As such, there remains no surviving
complainant or aggrieved person to pursue the prosecution.
7. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted hereunder:
"xxx xxx xxx
"2. That , due to some misunderstanding I lodged a case against the
accused Tripati Satapathy vide G.R.-23/22 on the file of J.M.F.C.,
Khallikote.
3. That I and the parents with the consent of the accused person
compromised before the village gentries to maintain peace in future.
4. That, I do not wants proceed in this case.
5. That I have no objection if the accused persons released on bail.
6. That the facts stated above are all true to the best of my knowledge,
belief and information."
8. This Court has considered the affidavit/Annexure-4 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
Date: 16-Apr-2026 17:21:06 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.
9. In the present case, informant has joined the Petitioner in filing a
sworn affidavit and has categorically stated that he 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 himself, 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.
10.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.
11.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."
12.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
1 OHC
Location: AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499
Date: 16-Apr-2026 17:21:06
(2008) 16 SCC 1
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."
13.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.
14.In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed.
Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in Kodala P.S. Case No.06
of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.23 of 2022 pending in the
court of learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote is hereby quashed.
15.Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
