[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Sudhansu Sekhar vs State Of Orissa & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 20 April, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                CRLMC No.2180 of 2025

                                  Sudhansu Sekhar             ....                Petitioner(s)
                                  Rayaguru & Anr.
                                                               Mr. Manas Kumar Chand, Adv.
                                                            -versus-
                                  State of Orissa & Ors.      ....          Opposite Party(s)
                                                                   Mr. Debashish Nayak, AGA
                                                                     Mr. Ashreet Behera, 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 Petitioners against whom

the allegation of fraud is made, have prayed for

quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated

against them vide G.R. Case No.110 of 2017 pending

before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Koraput including

the order of cognizance dated 05.05.2018 passed therein.

3. Heard.

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

learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to

6/informants in one tone submit that due to some

misunderstanding the above noted F.I.R was lodged

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication both the parties are ready for amicable settlement of the Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00

dispute involved herein. A joint 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, Petitioner was the Chief Executive, District Supply & Marketing Society, Koraput and the Opp. Party No-2 to 6 were the members of Gramahundi Thakurani Producer Group, Mathapada, Koraput and during such period because of some misunderstanding followed by miss communication occurred between the parties for such reason F.I.R was lodged by Opp. Party No-2 to 6 against the Petitioner for misappropriation of Rs.28,00,000/- which was registered as Koraput P.S. Case No.23 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.110 of 2017 which is now pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M, Koraput.

2. That although due to the aforesaid reason of misunderstanding the F.I.R was lodged but soon thereafter as it was found that the aforesaid money has been given by the Petitioner to several supplier for the purpose of procurement of raw materials to be used by the Society members to prepare the finished product and thereafter those suppliers have also admitted about taking of such advance money and more over in the meantime the entire amount of Rs.28,00,000/- has already

Designation: Personal Assistant Society for which no misappropriation of any Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00 amount has happened thus the Opp. Party No-

2 to 6 have no grievance lying against the Petitioner for which they are no more interested to proceed in this case hence this Joint Affidavit.

3. That as at present both the Petitioner and the Opp.Party No.2 to 6 are having a good relation without having any Claim over each other thus the Opp-Party No-2 to 6 are not interested to pursue with the litigation initiated by them any further and hereby declare that they will also not depose against the Petitioner in the Court of Law and have no objection if based on their such stand the present petition filed be the Petitioner be allowed by this Hon'ble Court.

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

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

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00

become remote and continuation of the prosecution

would amount to futility or oppression.

7. In the present case, Opposite Party Nos.2 to 6 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 qua the Petitioners only

and that the Petitioners are 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 complainants, 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

proceeding qua the present Petitioners would amount to

an abuse of the process of Court and would not

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00

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 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

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499

(2008) 16 SCC 1

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 Koraput Town P.S.

Case No.23 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.110

of 2017 relating to the present Petitioners only is,

hereby, quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal

proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., G.R. Case No.110 of

2017 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M,

Koraput including the order of cognizance dated