[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Mohammad Sonu vs State Of Orissa & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 16 April, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                 CRLMC No.608 of 2026

                                  Mohammad Sonu            ....                Petitioner(s)
                                                         Mr. Rajendra Kumar Pradhan, Adv.
                                                         -versus-
                                  State of Orissa & Anr.   ....           Opposite Party(s)
                                                                Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC
                                                                  Mr. Sobhana Biswal, Adv.

                                        CORAM:
                                        HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
               Order No.                                  ORDER
                  04.                                    16.04.2026
                                  1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner being the

husband of the Opposite Party No.2, has prayed for

quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated

against him due to a matrimonial dispute vide G.R.

Case No.2761 of 2024 arising out of Rourkela Plant Site

P.S. Case No.805 of 2024 pending before the Court of

learned S.D.J.M(P), Rourkela.

3. Heard.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2/

complainant in one tone submit that both the parties are

ready for amicable settlement of the dispute involved

herein. They submit that due to some matrimonial

Designation: Personal Assistant dispute the above noted F.I.R was lodged against the Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Apr-2026 17:10:43

Petitioner. It is also submitted that upon execution of

the "Deed of Khulanama" between the Petitioner and

the Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner has already paid

the permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five

lakh only) to the Opposite Party No.2. A joint affidavit

has been filed to that effect. They also rely on the

decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian

Singh Vrs. State of Punjab and another1, B.S. Joshi and

Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana and Ors.2, Naushey Ali Vrs.

State of Uttar Pradesh 3 and Madduri Gangaraju @

Baburao Vrs. Madduri Sunanda and Ors.4

5. The relevant portions of the said joint affidavit filed by

both the parties are extracted hereunder:-

"xxx xxx xxx

1. That, by virtue of the F.I.R filed by the deponent No.1 before the I.I.C, Rourkela Plant Site Police Station, the said F.I.R has been registered as Rourkela Plant Site, P.S. Case No.805 of 2024 for commission of offences punishable U/s. 498A/323/294/315/34 of the IPC as well as Section 4 of the D.P. Act corresponding to G.R. Case No.2761 of 2024 pending in the file of Learned S.D.J.M (P) Rourkela against the deponent No.2. In the meantime investigation has substantially completed by the I.O and the case is pending for appearance of the petitioner.

(2012) 10 SCC 303

(2003) 25 OCR (SC) 99

Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant (2025) 4 SCC 78

Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Criminal Appeal No.1802-1803 of 2013 Date: 17-Apr-2026 17:10:43

2. That in the meantime the matter has amicably settled between the parties and the deed of Khulanama has been executed by the petitioner as well as the informant and the deponent No.1 (informant) has already received the permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- from the deponent No.2 (petitioner) and after receiving the said permanent alimony the deponent No.1 (informant) has already given the acknowledgement to the petitioner.

3. That due to misunderstanding between the parties the F.I.R has been lodged by the informant and in the meanwhile the matter was amicably settled between the parties and the informant does not want to proceed with the case.

4. That the deponent No.1 has no objection if this Hon'ble Court will quash the entire proceeding pending against the petitioner/ deponent No.2 and we swear this affidavit to produce this Hon'ble Court for kind perusal and necessary orders."

xxx xxx xxx"

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

Designation: Personal Assistant

required to examine the nature and gravity of the Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Apr-2026 17:10:43

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 too she has

already received the permanent alimony. 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 continuance of the impugned criminal

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Apr-2026 17:10:43

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. Radhika5 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 of Manoj Sharma v. State6 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

Designation: Personal Assistant AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499

Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa (2008) 16 SCC 1 Date: 17-Apr-2026 17:10:43

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 F.I.R. in Rourkela Plant Site

P.S. Case No.805 of 2024 is, hereby, quashed.

Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising

therefrom, i.e., G.R. Case No.2761 of 2024 pending

before the Court of learned S.D.J.M(P), Rourkela also

stands quashed.

13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.