p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2426 of 2025 Pankaj Sahu …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC Mr. Santanu Kumar Behera, Adv. Mr. S. Sourav, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 03. ORDER 20.04.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the allegation of gunfire in the hotel of the Opposite Party No.2 is made, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him vide C.T. Case No.47 of 2023 arising out of Jharpokharia P.S. Case No.14 of 2023 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C-1 (Cog. Taking), Baripada. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 in one tone submit that both the parties are ready for amicable settlement of the dispute involved herein. A joint Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00 Signature Not Verified p. 2 affidavit has been filed to that effect. They, accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC. 5. The relevant portions of the said joint affidavit filed by both the parties are extracted hereunder:- “xxx xxx xxx 1. That, the petitioner is arrayed as accused person in connection with C.T. No.47 of 2023 arising out of Jharpokharia P.S. Case No.14 of 2023 pending in the file of the learned J.M.F.C-1 (Cog. Taking), Baripada. 2. That, on the behest of the Opp. Party No.2 the above mentioned case was initiated against the petitioner for the commission of the alleged offences punishable under sections 307 of the IPC r/w sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. 3. That, it is alleged in the FIR that on 15.01.2023 the accused person came to his hotel for dinner, and after taking dinner, he started arguing with the Opp. Party No.3 (Sujay Nayak) and thereafter the accused person fired a gun shoot to him and fled away from the spot. 4. That, it pertinent to mention here that in the meantime due to intervention of the village gentries, well wishers, disputes between them have been amicable settled and now the Opp. Parties Nos.2 & 3 are no more interested to proceed with C.T. No.47 of 2023 arising out of Jharpokharia P.S. Case No.14 of 2023 pending in the file of the learned J.M.F.C-1 (cog. Taking), Baripada. 5. That the petitioner has no criminal antecedent in his credit. xxx xxx xxx” Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00 Signature Not Verified p. 3 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 Nos.2 & 3 have joined the Petitioner in filing a sworn affidavit and have categorically stated that they do not wish to proceed further with the criminal case. Thus, the Court is not proceeding on the basis of a bare compromise alone, but on the subsequent stand of the complainants, 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00 Signature Not Verified p. 4 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 qua the present Petitioner 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 1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00 Signature Not Verified p. 5 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 Jharpokharia P.S. Case No.14 of 2023 is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., C.T. Case No.47 of 2023 arising out of Jharpokharia P.S. 2 (2008) 16 SCC 1 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00 Signature Not Verified p. 6 Case No.14 of 2023 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C-1 (Cog. Taking), Baripada stands quashed. 13. It appears that on the earlier occasion a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) was imposed on the informant for wasting the valuable time of the Police. 14. At this juncture, learned counsel for the informant submits that pursuant to the said direction of this Court, the informant has already paid the cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of the Welfare Fund, Police Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack. The said original draft worth Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty- five thousand only) is handed over to the learned counsel for the State in Court today. 15. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant