[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Udit Narayan Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Anr. ........ Opposite ... on 24 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 565 of 2026
Udit Narayan Pradhan ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Bhagabat Prasad Rath, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. ........ Opposite Party(s)
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sahoo, Adv.
(for O.P.2)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
24.03.2026
Order No.
03.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the
criminal proceeding initiated against him in Khandagiri P.S. Case
No.356 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No.960 of 2024
pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C. V (Cog. Taking),
Bhubaneswar.
4. 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 18.03.2026 has
been filed in Court today. The same be kept on record.
5. The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by both the parties
is extracted hereunder:
"xxx xxx xxx
3.That due to intervention of parents and well wishers of both the petitioner
and Opp. Party No.2, the dispute has already been amicably settled between
us and the Opp. Party No.2 is not willing to proceed further with the case
pending against the petitioner before the learned Court of J.M.F.C.-V (Cog.
Taking), Bhubaneswar.
4.That, in view of the amicable settlement if this Hon'ble Court may quash
the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, the Opp. Party No.2 has no
objection/grievances to that effect.
5. That, both the petitioner and Opp. Party No.2 in compliance to the order
dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack swear
this joint affidavit on our own free will, without there being any pressure,
undue influence, coercion, threat, danger from any manner whatsoever."
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
7. In the present case, Opposite Party No.2 has joined the Petitioner
in filing a sworn affidavit and has categorically stated that he
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.
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:
AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499
"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."
10.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
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.
(2008) 16 SCC 1
12.In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed.
Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in Khandagiri P.S. Case No.
356 of 2024 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal
proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., C.T. Case No.960 of 2024
pending before the learned J.M.F.C.-V(Cog. Taking),
Bhubaneswar, also stands quashed. However, this Court deems it
appropriate to impose cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen
thousand) each on the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2 for
wasting the valuable time of the Police Department. The said cost
shall be deposited with the Odisha Police Welfare Funds for the
purpose of utilizing the said amount for healthcare and medical
treatment of police personnel including for injuries sustained
during operation within fifteen days from today. The copy of the
receipt of the said deposit shall be presented before the Office of
the Advocate General, Odisha, Cuttack/counsel for the State.
13.Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
