[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Soubhagya Nayak & vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 23 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.550 of 2026
Soubhagya Nayak & .... Petitioner(s)
Ors.
Mr. Gyana Ranjan Dhal, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Chitta Ranjan Swain, AGA
Mr. Akshaya Kumar Subudhi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order No. ORDER
03. 23.03.2026
1.
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioners against whom
the allegation of domestic violence is made, has prayed
for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated
against them vide C.T. Case No.92 of 2025 arising out of
Nayapalli P.S. Case No.32 dated 01.02.2025 pending
before the Court of learned J.M.F.C-III, Bhubaneswar.
3. Heard.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioners and
learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2/informant
in one tone submit that both the parties are ready for
amicable settlement of the dispute involved herein.
They also submit that due to some matrimonial dispute
the above noted F.I.R was lodged against the
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:03:06
Petitioners. They further contend that in the meantime,
the Petitioner No.1 and the Opposite Party
No.2/informant are leading a happy conjugal life. A
joint affidavit has been filed to that effect. They,
accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this
CRLMC.
5. The relevant portion of the said joint affidavit filed by
both the parties is extracted hereunder:-
"xxx xxx xxx
1. That the matter has been amicably settled
between the Petitioners (Soubhagya Nayak,
Sagar Nayak, Dillip Nayak, Pratima Nayak)
and the informant (Opp. Party No.2) Sanjukta
Nayak, so the informant (Opposite Party
No.2) is not willing to run the case anymore.
2. That this is a matrimonial dispute and as the
matter has been amicably settled between the
parties, the informant (Opposite Party No.2) is
now staying happily with the present
petitioners in her matrimonial home.
Soubhagya Nayak (Petitioner No.1) is the
husband of the informant (Opposite Party
No.2), Sanjukta Nayak. Sagar Nayak
(Petitioner No.2), Dillip Nayak (Petitioner
No.3) and Pratima Nayak (Petitioner No.4)
are happens to be brother-in-law, father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the informant (Opp.
Party No.2) Sanjukta Nayak. The informant-
Sanjukta Nayak and her husband (Petitioner
No.1) Soubhagya Nayak are expecting their
first child.
3. That the informant (Opp. Party No.2)
Sanjukta Nayak does not have any objection if
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:03:06
the entire proceeding including the F.I.R
against the Petitioners will be quashed by this
Hon'ble Court.
4. That both the parties swearing this affidavit to
state that the matter has been amicably settled
between them in the meantime.
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
become remote and continuation of the prosecution
would amount to futility or oppression.
7. In the present case, Opposite Party No.2 has joined the
Petitioners in filing a sworn affidavit and has
categorically stated that she does not wish to proceed
further with the criminal case and that the Petitioners
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:03:06
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.
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 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.
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
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499
Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:03:06
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
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.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.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa (2008) 16 SCC 1
Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:03:06
12.In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is
allowed. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Nayapali P.S. Case
No.32 dated 01.02.2025 is hereby quashed.
Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising
therefrom, i.e., C.T. Case No.92 of 2025 pending before
the Court of learned J.M.F.C III, Bhubaneswar also
stands quashed.
13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:03:06
