IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2836 of 2025 Prakash Mukhi ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Pitambar Jena, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ……. Opposite Party (s) Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv. (for O.P.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 07.05.2026 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against them in Ghatagaon P.S. Case No.134 of 2024, corresponding to Special Case No.23/2024 pending in the court of learned Additional and Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Keonjhar. 4. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that, in the interregnum, the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. In support thereof, a joint affidavit dated 27.02.2026 has been filed by the parties. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-May-2026 11:04:38 Signature Not Verified 2 5. The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by both the parties is extracted hereunder: “xxx xxx xxx “9) That both the parties have filed the above mentioned joint affidavit as they have settled their dispute amicably and leading a happy and friendly life and this affidavit was filed before the competent authority to produce before the Hon’ble Court and it was filed without any fear, coercion and threat from any side. 10) That in view of amicable settlement and compromise, the Second Party/Informant (O.P. No.2) has no objection if the present Criminal Case is dropped against the First Party (Petitioner) and as because she is not willing to proceed against the First Party (Petitioner) in this case. therefore she has also no objection if the proceeding initiated against the first party in connection with Ghatgaon P.S. Case No. 134 of 2024, corresponding to Special Case No.23 of 2024, now pending in the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge under POCSO Act, Keonjhar, Dist.- Keonjhar, for alleged commission of offences punishable U/s.376(2)(n) of IPC r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act is quashed/ set aside against the First Party (Petitioner).” 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-May-2026 11:04:38 Signature Not Verified 3 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 sworn 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 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 the 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 1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-May-2026 11:04:38 Signature Not Verified 4 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 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 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 2 (2008) 16 SCC 1 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-May-2026 11:04:38 Signature Not Verified 5 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 cognizance order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Keonjhar in Special Case No.23 of 2024 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., Ghatagaon P.S. Case No.134 of 2024, corresponding to Special Case No.23 of 2024 pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Keonjhar, also stands quashed.. 13. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.