[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Uttam Kumar Patel & 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. 2690 of 2025
Uttam Kumar Patel & Ors. ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Swaraj Patel, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. ........ Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
Mr. Sumit Sangram Patel, Adv.
(for O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
25.03.2026
Order No.
03.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioners have filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the
criminal proceeding initiated against them in Sundargarh Town
P.S. Case No.120 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.400 of
2025 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh.
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 23.03.2026 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
"That the dispute between the parties arose out of a misunderstanding
relating to personal issues.
That with the intervention of well-wishers and respectable persons of the
locality, the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the Court
through mutual discussion. The misunderstanding has been cleared and the
relationship between the parties has been normalised"
That the compromise has been effected voluntarily, out of free will, consent
and without any coercion, pressure, inducement or undue influence from any
quarter.
That the Opposite Party No.2 (informant) has no grievance whatsoever
against the Petitioners and does not want to proceed with the criminal case
any further.
That both the parties are now living peacefully and maintaining cordial
relationship with each other.
That both the parties have no objection if the FIR, charge-sheet and the entire
criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.400 of 2025 arising out of Sundargarh
Town P.S. Case No.120 of 2025 are quashed by this Hon'ble Court."
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 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 himself, 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
AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499
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."
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
(2008) 16 SCC 1
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 criminal proceeding in Sundargarh Twon P.S.
Case No. 120 of 2025 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the entire
criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., G.R. Case No.400 of
2025 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh, also stands
quashed.
13.Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
