[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Navneet Arora vs State Of Odisha & Anr. ....... Opposite ... on 18 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 641 of 2026
Navneet Arora ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sarat Kumar Gajendra, Sr. Adv.
along with associate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. ....... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Raj Bhushan Dash, ASC
Mr. Laxman Pradhan, Adv.
(for O.P.2)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
18.03.2026
Order No.
04.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Mr. Laxman Pradhan, learned Advocate enters appearance on
behalf of the Opposite Party No2 and files Vakalatnama in Court
today. The same be kept on record.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the
FIR in Badagada P.S. Case Nos.16 of 2025, corresponding to C.T.
Case No.23 of 2026 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C. IV,
Bhubaneswar.
5. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that, in the
interregnum, the dispute between the parties has been amicably
settled. In support thereof, a joint affidavit dated 09.03.2026 has
been filed on record.
6. The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by both the parties
is extracted hereunder:
"xxx xxx xxx
7.That in view of the aforesaid facts, I, do not want to proceed any further
with the Police Complaint I had filed and registered by Badagada Police,
Bhubaneswar in P.S. Case No.16 Dt. 08.01.2026 U/s 74/77 NS R.w 67(A)
IT Act, against the Applicant- Deponent No.1, pending in the Court of
JMFC -IV, Bhubaneswar in C.T. No.23 of 2026 and prays the Hon'ble High
Court to quash the aforesaid proceedings and be kind enough to dispose of the
case.
8.That the aforesaid facts are true and the Applicant- Deponent No.1 Shri
Navneet Arora is no way involved in the alleged crime and the complaint
which has been registered by the Police whimsically slapping the charges
against him U/s 74/77 BNS R.w 67(A) IT Act erroneously and harassed him
in detaining in Police Custody the whole night of Dt.07.01.2026 until
forwarded him to the Court which remanded him to Judicial Custody on
Dt.08.01.2026 Bhubaneswar in bail Application No.65/2026 on
Dt.16.01.2026. Under these circumstances, the Applicant-Deponent No.1,
prays this Hon'ble High Court to be pleased to quash the aforesaid
proceedings and be kind enough to relieve him of the aforesaid charges."
7. 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.
8. 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
the Petitioner is 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 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.
9. In light of the aforesaid, and applying the same to the facts of the
present case, this Court is of the considered view that the
continuance of the impugned criminal proceeding would amount
to an abuse of the process of Court and would not subserve the
ends of justice.
10.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."
11.Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case 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
AIR 2012
Signature SUPREME COURT 499
Not Verified
(2008) 16 SCC 1
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: P.A.
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 20-Mar-2026 16:45:26
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."
12.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.
13.In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed.
Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Badagada P.S. Case No. 16 of 2026 is
hereby quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding
arising therefrom, i.e., C.T. Case No. 23 of 2026 pending before the
learned J.M.F.C.-IV, Bhubaneswar, also stands quashed.
14.This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
