p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1255 of 2025 Kshyana Prava Bastia …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Alok Kumar Mohapatra, B. Panda, S. Sarangi, J.S. Samal, H. Panda, Md. S. Ali, A. Pahi, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC Mr. Sambit Kumar Behera, Adv. for O.P.2 CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 25.02.2026 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against her due to a matrimonial dispute in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.173 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.1761 of 2023 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Bhubaneswar. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 in one tone submit that both the parties are ready for amicable settlement of the dispute involved herein. They also file a Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Feb-2026 17:21:36 Signature Not Verified p. 2 joint affidavit to that effect. They, accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC. 5. It is well settled that although the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 307, 294, 34 & 4 of the I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non- compoundable, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is not denuded of power to quash the criminal proceeding where the dispute is essentially private and matrimonial in nature and the parties have voluntarily arrived at a genuine and complete settlement. The underlying object of such exercise is to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Where the continuation of the criminal proceeding, despite an amicable settlement, would serve no fruitful purpose and would only perpetuate bitterness between the parties, the High Court would be justified in interdicting the prosecution, particularly when the informant herself has unequivocally expressed her consent for such quashing. 6. Considering the contents of the joint affidavit filed by the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2/ informant and following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another1, and two other reported cases of this Court in Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Feb-2026 17:21:36 Signature Not Verified p. 3 and four others v. State of Orissa and four others2, and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and another –vrs.- State of Orissa and Another3, wherein this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in allowing such proceedings to continue the criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case as it will only lead to abuse the process of law. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Mahila P.S. Case No.173 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.1761 of 2023 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Bhubaneswar stands quashed. 6. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. 7. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta 2 2014 (II) OLR 29 3 2014 (II) OLR 452 Designation: Personal Assistant