N. Rajesh & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2861 Ori

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2861 Ori
Judgement Date : 25 March, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

N. Rajesh & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 25 March, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                 CRLMC No.343 of 2026

                                  N. Rajesh & Ors.          ....               Petitioner(s)
                                                                Ms. Susmita Pattnaik, Adv.
                                                         -versus-
                                  State of Odisha & Anr.   ....           Opposite Party(s)
                                                                Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC
                                                                 Mr. Sangram Mishra, Adv.

                                        CORAM:
                                        HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
             Order No.                                    ORDER
                02.                                      25.03.2026
                                  1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner No.1 being the

husband of the Opposite Party No.2 and the Petitioner

Nos.2 to 4 being the in-laws members of the Opposite

Party No.2, have prayed for quashing the entire

criminal proceeding initiated against them vide G.R.

Case No.666/2023 pending before the Court of learned

S.D.J.M, Cuttack.

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

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Mar-2026 17:05:34 joint affidavit has been filed to that effect. They,

accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this

CRLMC.

5. The relevant portions of the said joint affidavit filed by

both the parties are extracted hereunder:-

"xxx xxx xxx

1. That while the fact stood thus by an amicable Settlement Between we both the spouses filed a joint petition under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, vide C.P. No.721/2025 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack praying therein for passing mutual Divorce and as per the terms of said compromise. Also I Deponent No.2 have received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- out of Rs.7,00,000/- as part paying of my permanent alimony and the matter is pending for disposal before the Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.

2. That as per the condition of the compromise we both parties have agreed to co-operate for disposal of the pending cases as reflected in the joint Divorce petition. Accordingly we both filed affidavit before this Hon'ble Court.

3. That, at the present scenario the continuance of said G.R. Case before the Court below is an unnecessary waste of time and money as we are not interest to proceed further with this case in view of the compromise effected between us.

4. That we have not suppressed any material facts and being in sound mind have filed divorce petition before the Judge Family Court,

Designation: Personal Assistant xxx xxx xxx"

Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Mar-2026 17:05:34

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

are 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

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication unequivocal position taken by the complainant, this Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Mar-2026 17:05:34

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 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 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

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Mar-2026 17:05:34

AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499

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.

12.In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is

allowed. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding

initiated against the Petitioners vide G.R. Case No.666

of 2023 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M,

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Mar-2026 17:05:34

(2008) 16 SCC 1

13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.