p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.198 of 2025 Himanshu Sekhar @ Himansu Sekhar Panda & Anr. …. Petitioner(s) Ms. Sujata Jena, Sr. Adv. along with associates -versus- State of Orissa & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC Ms. Susama Rani Sahoo, Adv. Mr. M. Mahammad, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 11.02.2026 05. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them in connection with Tangi Town P.S. Case No.172 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.881 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C-II (Cog.Taking), Cuttack. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the complainant-Opposite Party No.2 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Feb-2026 16:22:32 Signature Not Verified p. 2 in one tone submit that in the meantime, both the parties are agreed to settle the dispute amicably. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the State, on instruction, submits that after untimely death of the deceased-mother the one-year-old baby is being reared up by his father and the parents of his deceased mother. 6. Looking to the joint affidavit given by the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2, though this Court is of the view that this kind of offences are not amenable for quashing of cases of this nature, considering the peaceful atmosphere in the house of both the parties who are unitedly taking care of the one-year-old child after untimely death of his mother, this Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceeding, despite an amicable settlement, would serve no fruitful purpose and would only perpetuate bitterness between the parties. 7. It is also well settled that although the offences under Sections 85, 103, 80, 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Feb-2026 16:22:32 Signature Not Verified p. 3 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 himself has unequivocally expressed his consent for such quashing. 8. Considering the contents of the joint affidavit filed by the Petitioners 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 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. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide G.R. Case 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 2014 (II) OLR 29 3 2014 (II) OLR 452 Designation: Personal Assistant p. 4 No.881 of 2024 arising out of Tangi Town P.S. Case No.172 of 2024 pending before the Court of the learned J.M.F.C-II (Cog. Taking), Cuttack stands quashed. 10. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. 11. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant