[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Pankaj Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 20 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2426 of 2025
Pankaj Sahu .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC
Mr. Santanu Kumar Behera, Adv.
Mr. S. Sourav, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order No. ORDER
03. 20.04.2026
1.
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the
allegation of gunfire in the hotel of the Opposite Party
No.2 is made, has prayed for quashing the entire
criminal proceeding initiated against him vide C.T.
Case No.47 of 2023 arising out of Jharpokharia P.S. Case
No.14 of 2023 pending before the Court of learned
J.M.F.C-1 (Cog. Taking), Baripada.
3. Heard.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 in one
tone submit that both the parties are ready for amicable
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00
affidavit has been filed to that effect. They, accordingly,
pray for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC.
5. The relevant portions of the said joint affidavit filed by
both the parties are extracted hereunder:-
"xxx xxx xxx
1. That, the petitioner is arrayed as accused
person in connection with C.T. No.47 of 2023
arising out of Jharpokharia P.S. Case No.14 of
2023 pending in the file of the learned
J.M.F.C-1 (Cog. Taking), Baripada.
2. That, on the behest of the Opp. Party No.2 the
above mentioned case was initiated against the
petitioner for the commission of the alleged
offences punishable under sections 307 of the
IPC r/w sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
3. That, it is alleged in the FIR that on
15.01.2023 the accused person came to his
hotel for dinner, and after taking dinner, he
started arguing with the Opp. Party No.3
(Sujay Nayak) and thereafter the accused
person fired a gun shoot to him and fled away
from the spot.
4. That, it pertinent to mention here that in the
meantime due to intervention of the village
gentries, well wishers, disputes between them
have been amicable settled and now the Opp.
Parties Nos.2 & 3 are no more interested to
proceed with C.T. No.47 of 2023 arising out of
Jharpokharia P.S. Case No.14 of 2023 pending
in the file of the learned J.M.F.C-1 (cog.
Taking), Baripada.
5. That the petitioner has no criminal antecedent
in his credit.
Digitally Signed xxx xxx xxx"
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00
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 Nos.2 & 3 have
joined the Petitioner in filing a sworn affidavit and have
categorically stated that they do not wish to proceed
further with the criminal case. Thus, the Court is not
proceeding on the basis of a bare compromise alone,
but on the subsequent stand of the complainants, which
substantially erodes the factual substratum of the
prosecution. Having regard to the materials on record,
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
taken by the complainant, this Court is satisfied that the
Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00
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
proceeding qua the present Petitioner 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
Digitally Signed appeal on one hand and the exercise of power
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00
AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499
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. 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 F.I.R. in Jharpokharia P.S.
Case No.14 of 2023 is, hereby, quashed. Consequently,
the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e.,
C.T. Case No.47 of 2023 arising out of Jharpokharia P.S.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00
(2008) 16 SCC 1
Case No.14 of 2023 pending before the Court of learned
J.M.F.C-1 (Cog. Taking), Baripada stands quashed.
13.It appears that on the earlier occasion a cost of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) was
imposed on the informant for wasting the valuable time
of the Police.
14.At this juncture, learned counsel for the informant
submits that pursuant to the said direction of this
Court, the informant has already paid the cost of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) by way
of a demand draft drawn in favour of the Welfare Fund,
Police Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack. The
said original draft worth Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-
five thousand only) is handed over to the learned
counsel for the State in Court today.
15. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00
