IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1938 of 2026 Binod Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Amit Kumar Nath, Adv. versus- State of Orissa & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC Mr. R.P. Pattnaik, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 02. ORDER 15.07.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the allegation of abusing the informant in filthy languages is made, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him vide C.T.(S) Case No.455/2025 arising out of Industrial P.S. (Nisa) Case No.103/2019 pending before the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Angul. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner 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 misunderstanding the above noted F.I.R was lodged against the present Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Jul-2026 18:06:46 Signature Not Verified Petitioner. A joint affidavit to that effect at the instance of both the parties has been filed. They, accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC. 5. The relevant portions of the said affidavit are extracted hereunder:- “xxx xxx xxx 1. That petitioner filed CRLMC No.1938/2026 before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack (arising out of Industrial PS (Nisa) P.S. Case No.103/2019 corresponding to C.T.(S) Case No.455/2025 and the same is not pending before the learned court of the Sessions Judge, Angul). 2. That the prosecution allegation is that, on 05.06.2019 at about 08 A.M while the informant was brushing his teeth on the road at the time the present petitioner was came and abused him in filthy language. It is alleged that then the present petitioner was assaulted him by means of a iron pipe as a result the informant sustained injury on his head and the present petitioner also threatened to the informant with dire consequences. The present petitioner is a young boy in angry mood, he assault the informant there is no previous enmity nothing else there is in angry mood and Opp. Party No.2 lodged an FIR against the present petitioner. 3. That after completion of investigation the local police filed chargesheet U/s.341/294/323/307/506 of I.P.C and thereafter the learned District & Sessions Judge, Angul was pleased framed charge against the present petitioner order dtd.21.07.2025 U/s. 341/294/ 323/ 307/ 506 of I.P.C 4. That the present petitioner and the Opp. Party No.2 are belong to same locality and due to the intervention of the village gentles and well wishers, Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Jul-2026 18:06:46 Signature Not Verified the matter has been amicable settled between the parties, for which this Hon’ble Court by utilizing the inherent power vested U/s. 482 of Cr.P.C may quash the order dtd.21.07.2025 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T.(S) No.455/2025, in the interest of justice. xxx xxx xxx” 6. This Court has considered the affidavit filed by both the 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 joint 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Jul-2026 18:06:46 Signature Not Verified 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 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 1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Jul-2026 18:06:46 Signature Not Verified 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. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Industrial P.S (Nisa) P.S. Case No.103/2019 is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., 2 (2008) 16 SCC 1 Designation: Personal Assistant C.T(S) Case No.455/2025 pending before the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Angul also stands quashed. 13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant