[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sekharshree Mahajan & vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 31 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.816 of 2026
Sekharshree Mahajan &
Anr. .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Arijeet Mishra, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
Mr. D.K. Naik, Adv. (for O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 31.03.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioners have prayed
for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated
against them vide Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.624 of 2024
corresponding to G.R. Case No.1412 of 2024, pending
before the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack.
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
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
16.03.2026 has been filed on record.
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:25:04
5. The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by both the
parties is extracted hereunder:
"xxx xxx xxx
3. That, the petitioners and the informant (Opp. party
no.-2) are the family members. The petitioner no-1 and
the co-petitioner are the husband and mother-in-law of
the informant.
4. That as in the meantime due to intervention of the
village gentries, well wishers & in presence of the parties
& family members the matter has already been
compromised and settled amicably between us.
5. That the deponent no- 3 (opp.party no-2) say that she
has no grievance against the deponent no-1 and 2 (i.e
petitioners) in any manner and the deponent no- 3
(opp.party no-2) does not want to proceed further in this
case against the petitioners further.
6. That in view of such settlement at present we are
leading a happy and peaceful life without any dispute/
difference between us.
7. That in view of amicable settlement & being present
in court premises today we are swearing this affidavit
without fear, pressure& coercion and not being
influenced by any person (s)/comer and this affidavit
shall be produced before the competent court of law for
the interest of justice and welfare of the parties."
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 No.1 & Petitioner No.2 in filing a sworn affidavit
and has categorically stated that Opposite Party No.2 does
not wish to proceed further with the criminal case against
the Petitioners. 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:
"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
AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499
(2008) 16 SCC 1
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 F.I.R. in Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case
No.624 of 2024 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the entire
criminal proceedings arising therefrom, i.e., G.R. Case
No.1412 of 2024 pending before the learned J.M.F.C.(R),
Cuttack, also stands quashed.
13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
14. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
15. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial
Court for information.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sipun
