[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Narahari Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 9 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.433 of 2026
Narahari Pradhan .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sumit Sekhar Pattanaik, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 09.02.2026
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for
quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated
against him in connection with Bhadrak Town P.S. Case
No.277 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1841/2021
pertaining to 1CC Case No.35/2024 pending before the
Court of learned S.D.J.M, Bhadrak.
3. Heard.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that in the meantime, vide order dated 25.03.2025 passed
in CRLMC No.2642 of 2024 this Court based on the
compromise petition/ affidavit has already quashed the
above noted criminal proceeding pertaining to the
Designation: Personal Assistant principal accused only. He further contends that in the
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Feb-2026 18:52:34
meantime, both the parties have already settled the
dispute amicably outside the Court. He, accordingly, prays
for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC.
5. It is well settled that although the offences under
Sections 341, 323, 294, 379, 506 & 34 of the I.P.C. are non-
compoundable, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is not
denuded of power to quash the criminal proceeding where
the dispute is essentially private and matrimonial in
nature and the parties have voluntarily arrived at a
genuine and complete settlement. The underlying object of
such exercise is to secure the ends of justice and to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court. Where the continuation
of the criminal proceeding, despite an amicable settlement,
would serve no fruitful purpose and would only
perpetuate bitterness between the parties, the High Court
would be justified in interdicting the prosecution,
particularly when the informant himself has unequivocally
expressed his consent for such quashing.
6. Considering the contents of the joint affidavit filed by
the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2/ informant in
CRLMC No.2642 of 2024 and following the ratio laid down
by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
Digitally Signed and another1, and two other reported cases of this Court in
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Feb-2026 18:52:341 (2012) 10 SCC 303
Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four others v. State of Orissa
and four others2, and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and
another -vrs.- State of Orissa and Another3, wherein this
Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be
served in allowing such proceedings to continue the
criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case as it will only
lead to abuse the process of law.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations,
the application is allowed. Accordingly, the entire criminal
proceeding initiated against the Petitioner in the aforesaid
G.R. Case bearing No. 1841/2021, pending before the Court
of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak, stands quashed.
8. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
9. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Designation: Personal Assistant
2014 (II) OLR 29
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Feb-2026 18:52:343 2014 (II) OLR 452
