IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 4980 of 2025 Sanjay Jena @ Sanjay Kumar Jena & Anr. ..... Petitioner (s) Mr. Suryanarayan Panigrahi, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC Mr. Pritish Mohapatra, Advocate for O.P No.2 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 05.03.2026 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioners have filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the order dated 22.08.2025 passed in l.C.C No. 4853/2023 by the learned JMFC-III (Cog Taking), Bhubaneswar. 3. Learned counsel for both the parties submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties through Mediation vide Mediation proceeding No.24 of 2026 dated 25.02.2026, wherein the mediation became successful. The contents of the mediation report are extracted hereinbelow: - “1.…..that, after thorough discussion between the parties, it has been amicable settled that sum of Rs.4,00,000/-(Four Lakhs) only will be paid to Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Mar-2026 16:47:32 Signature Not Verified 2 the opp.party No.2 by the petitioners as full and final settlement amount of the above conflict. 2. That, the petitioners will pay the full final settlement amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Four Lakhs) only to the Opp. Party No.2 within a period of one month from today i.e. on or before 25.03.2026 through RTGS/NEFT/Demand Draft. 3.That, after getting the said full and final settlement amount, the opp.party No.2 shall withdraw the 1CC case No.4853 of 2023 pending before the Court of JMFC-III, Bhubaneswar within a period of 15 days from the date of receiving of the settlement amount. 4.That, after the settlement there shall be no claim against each other with regard to the present conflict in future. 5.That, as the matter amicably settled before this mediation both parties are abide by the terms and conditions mentioned in the above agreement and undertakes to follow all the terms and conditions as mentioned above. xxx xxx xxx” 4. Having bestowed a thoughtful consideration upon the mediation report jointly filed by the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2/Complainant, this Court finds that the underlying dispute between the parties has been amicably and voluntarily resolved, leaving no subsisting grievance that would justify the continuation of the criminal prosecution. The jurisprudential Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Mar-2026 16:47:32 Signature Not Verified 3 basis for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court in such circumstances is now well-settled. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab1 authoritatively held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may quash criminal proceedings where the dispute is essentially private or personal in nature and the parties have arrived at a genuine and voluntary settlement, provided that such exercise of power advances the ends of justice and prevents abuse of the process of the Court. 5. The said principle proceeds on the broader jurisprudential understanding that criminal law, though primarily concerned with the protection of public order and societal interests, ought not to be invoked as an instrument to perpetuate litigation where the foundational dispute itself has been extinguished through a bona fide settlement between the parties. In appropriate cases, therefore, the inherent power of the High Court operates as a constitutional safety valve to ensure that the criminal process does not degenerate into a mechanical continuation of proceedings devoid of any meaningful prosecutorial purpose. 6. This Court has consistently adopted the aforesaid approach in its decisions in Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four others v. State 1 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Mar-2026 16:47:32 Signature Not Verified 4 of Orissa2 and four others and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and another v. State of Orissa and Another3 , wherein it has been reiterated that once the parties have amicably settled their differences and the dispute does not implicate overriding public interest, the continuance of criminal proceedings would merely amount to an unnecessary prolongation of litigation and an abuse of the process of law. 7. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid settled principles, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case squarely falls within the category of matters where the continuance of the criminal proceeding would serve no meaningful juridical purpose. Rather, it would only perpetuate avoidable litigation between parties who have already resolved their differences. In such circumstances, the criminal process must yield to the higher objective of securing the ends of justice, for the law does not compel courts to sustain prosecutions that have become sterile, purposeless, and oppressive in their continuation. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations, the application is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 22.08.2025 2 2014 (II) OLR 29 3 2014 (II) OLR 452 Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Mar-2026 16:47:32 Signature Not Verified 5 passed in l.C.C No. 4853 of 2023 by the learned JMFC-III (Cog Taking), Bhubaneswar is hereby quashed. 9. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali