[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bishnu Charan Mohanty vs Hemanta Kumar .... Opposite Party(S) on 19 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.107 of 2026
Bishnu Charan Mohanty .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Ananta Narayan Pattanayak, Adv.
-versus-
Hemanta Kumar .... Opposite Party(s)
Mohanty
Mr. Biswabhusan Das, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 19.03.2026
02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner being the issuer of
the cheques in question in favour of the sole Opposite
Party, has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal
proceeding initiated against him in connection with 1CC
Case No.61 of 2018 pending before the Court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur.
3. Heard.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the sole Opposite Party in one tone
submit that both the parties are ready for amicable
settlement of the dispute involved herein. Learned counsel
for the Petitioner also submits that in the meantime, the
Designation: Personal Assistant
Petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- (Rupees
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 19-Mar-2026 16:45:05
five lakh eighty thousand only) to the Opposite Party by
way of a Demand Draft bearing No.195496 dated
17.03.2026. He further contends that the cheques from
which the present CRLMC arises, are of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees five lakh only). A joint affidavit has been filed to
that effect. In the said joint affidavit, it has been stated that
the Opposite Party has already received the above noted
amount. They, accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer
made in this CRLMC.
5. It is well settled that although the offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is 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 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
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 19-Mar-2026 16:45:05
the Petitioner and the Opposite Party / informant and
since the Opposite Party has received the above noted
amount as has also been reflected in the said joint
affidavit, 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. The joint
affidavit filed by the parties be kept on record.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations,
the application is allowed. Accordingly, the entire criminal
proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide 1CC Case
No.61 of 2018 pending before the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur 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
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 19-Mar-2026 16:45:05
