Alok Swain & Ors vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party (S)
2026 Latest Caselaw 424 Ori

Orissa High Court

Alok Swain & Ors vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party (S) on 19 January, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                CRLMC No.3656 of 2025
             Alok Swain & Ors.         .....                 Petitioner (s)
                                               Mr. Arijeet Mishra, Advocate
                                        -versus-
             State of Odisha             .....           Opposite Party (s)
             (Vigilance) & Ors.                   Mr. Niranjan Moharana,
                                                      Standing Counsel for
                                                     Vigilance Department
                                      CORAM:
                THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                    ORDER

19.01.2026 Order No.

05.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. The Petitioners have approached this Court by filing

the present CRLMC invoking its inherent jurisdiction of the

Court, seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in

T.R. Case No. 90 of 2024, arising out of Tantiapal Marine P.S.

Case No. 90 of 2024, which is presently pending adjudication

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special

Judge, Kendrapara.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that the

informant/Opposite Party No.2 and the Petitioners are co-

villagers and that the genesis of the present case lies in a

purely private dispute arising out of alleged monetary Signature Not transactions Verified between the parties. It is contended that on the Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Jan-2026 18:27:27

relevant date, owing to such financial disagreement, a

quarrel ensued, pursuant to which the Petitioners were

implicated by the informant for the commission of the

alleged offences.

4. Upon considering the materials placed on record and the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties,

this Court finds that the dispute giving rise to the present

criminal proceeding has, in the meantime, been fully and

amicably resolved. It is not in dispute that the entire

outstanding dues have been paid to the informant and that

the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily by mutual

consent in the presence of village elders and family

members. The informant no longer harbours any subsisting

grievance against the Petitioners. In such circumstances, this

Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the

criminal proceeding would not subserve the ends of justice

and would amount to an unnecessary prolongation of a

purely private dispute.

5. He further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab1 and

another, wherein it has been held that the High Court, in

exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, may quash criminal

1 2012 NAYAK (10) SCC 303 Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Jan-2026 18:27:27

proceedings arising out of non-heinous offences having an

overwhelmingly civil or private character, where the parties

have voluntarily settled their disputes and the continuance

of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process

of law which has observed as follows:

"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.

Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK and offender in relation to the offences under

special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above

question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court

shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

6. At the very threshold, this Court deems it apposite to

reiterate that the criminal law is not designed as a

mere vehicle for the vindication of private grievances,

but constitutes a vital instrument of public justice,

entrusted with the preservation of societal order and

the enforcement of normative conduct. Where the

allegations disclose offences of a grave nature or

offences that carry significant societal ramifications,

the constitutional courts have consistently exercised

circumspection in permitting the termination of

criminal proceedings on the strength of a private

settlement between the parties. This judicial restraint

is rooted in the fact that certain categories of criminal

wrongs transcend the realm of individual disputate

and implicate the collective conscience of society,

thereby rendering them intrinsically non-amenable to

private compromise. The inherent jurisdiction of this

Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure/now under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is not an uncanalised

Digitally Signed discretion, but a constitutional trust reposed in the

High Courts to ensure that the administration of

criminal justice does not devolve into an instrument

of oppression, harassment, or abuse of process.

7. The exercise of such jurisdiction is essentially

corrective and preventive, rather than punitive, and

must be shaped by a principled, holistic, and context-

sensitive appraisal of the true nature and genesis of

the dispute, the attendant factual matrix, the degree of

culpability disclosed, and the realistic prospects of

securing a conviction upon a full-fledged trial.

However, the guiding consideration remains whether

the continuance of the prosecution would advance the

ends of justice or merely perpetuate a proceeding

devoid of any substantive public purpose. Upon such

appraisal, this Court finds that the genesis of the

prosecution lies in a dispute that is predominantly

private or civil in character. The alleged criminality is

incidental rather than foundational, and the

continuation of the proceedings would serve no

meaningful penal purpose. The insistence on a full-

fledged criminal trial may itself amount to an abuse of

the process of law. In such cases, the compromise

between the parties does not operate as a juridical

Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK substitute for adjudication, but merely furnishes a

relevant circumstance for such purpose. The 482

jurisdictions of this Court which is inherent in

character is neither appellate nor supervision. It is a

residual constitutional power vested on the High

Courts to correct systemic misuse. Its doctrinal

foundation lies in the principle that procedure should

not kill the substance.

8. In the exercise of such inherent jurisdiction, this Court

is not guided by a mechanical categorization of

offences as compoundable or non-compoundable.

The inquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, and now under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, is essentially

substantive and contextual. The Court is required,

first, to assess the dominant nature and genesis of the

dispute; second, the gravity and extent of the alleged

offence and its impact on society at large; third, the

degree of culpability prima facie disclosed from the

material on record; and fourth, the realistic

probability of securing a conviction upon a full-

fledged trial.

9. When the aforesaid parameters are applied in a

pragmatic and purposive manner to the facts of the

Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK present case, this Court finds that, in the backdrop of

a voluntary and genuine compromise between the

parties, the weight and force of these considerations

stand substantially attenuated. In such circumstances,

the continuation of the criminal proceeding would not

advance the ends of justice, but it would merely result

in the prolongation of a prosecution devoid of any

meaningful public interest. Where the compromise

placed before the Court reflects a genuine and

voluntary reconciliation in a dispute of an essentially

personal nature or arising out of a trivial altercation,

minor skirmish, or unintended scuffle carrying

minimal societal impact, the continuance of the

criminal prosecution ceases to serve any meaningful

public purpose and warrants careful scrutiny under

the Court's inherent jurisdiction.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the

considered view that the continuance of the criminal

proceedings at this stage would serve no legitimate

purpose and would merely result in an avoidable

clogging of the dockets in our system. Accordingly,

this Court deems it appropriate to interdict the

proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

11. In view of the above, the CRLMC stands allowed. The

Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK entire criminal proceeding in T.R. Case No. 90 of 2024,

arising out of Tantiapal Marine P.S. Case No. 90 of

2024, pending before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kendrapara, is hereby

quashed.

12. The CRLMC is disposed of, accordingly.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali