Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4883 of 2025 (A Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Manjulata Behera …. Petitioner (s) -versus- Jayant Kumar Swain & Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Basudev Pujari, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA Mr. Rama Krishna Bisoi, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-25.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-15.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, in this CRLMC, has made a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding pending against her in C.T. Case No.1101 of 2024, arising out of Chandrasekharpur P.S. Case No.509 of 2024, pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C (II), Bhubaneswar. , I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) on 21.06.2024 the Opposite Party No.1 lodged an FIR at Chandrasekharpur Police Station alleging therein that the Petitioner (Manjulata Behera) was working as Customer Relation Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 2 Officer in his Co-operative Society since 2015. From the internal committee report and survey of the society, it revealed that for the last two/three months the petitioner was collecting money from the customers which she failed to deposit in the society. Such collection amounted to be more than twenty-four lakhs rupees. She also created duplicate financial services bond in the name of the society. On being confronted, she remained absent. She did not respond to the letters asking her to join duty. When the petitioner was confronted with, she, her husband and son extended threat. (ii) On the basis of the above FIR, Chandrasekharpur P.S. Case No.509 of 2024 was registered for commission offences punishable under Sections 409 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. corresponding to C.T. Case No.1101 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (II), Bhubaneswar. (iii) Being aggrieved, the Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of the present CRLMC seeking appropriate relief. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The Opposite Party No.1 (Jayanta Kumar Swain) is the Secretary- cum-Managing Director of Nilachal Gramya Mahila Samabaya Samiti Limited, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner was working as Customer Relation Officer in the abovesaid Co- operative Society since 2015. On 21.06.2024, the Opposite Party Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 3 No.1 lodged an F.I.R at the Chandrasekharpur Police Station alleging that the Society’s Internal Committee Report and Survey revealed that: “from the last two three months she was collecting the daily deposits and loan collection from the customers by forging”. (ii) In the meantime, the authorities of the institution headed by the Opposite Party No.1 have realized that instead of pursuing the matter through the Court process it is better to amicably settle the issues. Accordingly, the authorities have agreed to amicably settle the issues instead of pursuing the Criminal Case. (iii) The Opposite Party No.1 has already intimated the petitioner for such an amicable settlement outside the Court for the betterment of the society and the members of the society. (iv) In view of the settlement made by the petitioner and the authorities of the society, continuance of the proceeding would not serve any purpose and it would be just and proper to quash the proceeding in C.T. Case No.1101 of 2024 pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C-II, Bhubaneswar. (v) In the present facts and circumstances, interest of justice would be best served by quashing the proceeding. Needless to submit the matter is still under investigation. Notice was issued in the CRLMC petition and the Opposite Party No.1 has entered appearance. (vi) It was also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on the prayer made on behalf of the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 4 petitioner, this Court vide order dated 27.02.2026 referred the matter to the High Court Mediation Centre for mediation. Both the parties appeared before the Mediator on 17.03.2026 and on 18.03.2026. The mediation report reads as follows: “Today, both the parties have agreed to settle the matter amicably by the following terms and conditions: 1. That the petitioner is agreed to pay a sum of Rs.18,65,074/- (Rupees Eighteen lakhs sixty five thousand seventy four only) to the Opp. Party No.1 Mr. Jayant Kumar Swain (Secretary-cum- MD of Nilachal Gramya Mahila Samabaya Ltd.) as full and final settlement amount as agreed upon by both the parties. 2. That, today, out of the aforesaid amount the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) during the mediation proceeding in shape of cash which is received by the Opp. party No.l Mr. Jayant Kumar Swain. 3. That, the petitioner further agreed to pay the rest amount of Rs.13,65,074/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs sixty five thousand seventy four only) to the Opp. party within a period of 3 years starting from April, 2026 to March, 2029 (thirty six months) with a minimum monthly installment of Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid by last week of every month and all payments shall be made through UPI/any online payment mode in the Account of Nilachal Gramya Mahila Samabaya Ltd. bearing A/c No.1160102000002905 of IDBI, Chandrasekharpur Branch, Bhubaneswar, IFSC Code-IBKL0001160. 4. That, in first year, the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, in 2nd year Rs.5,00,000/- and in the 3rd year the rest amount of Rs.5,65,074/-.” Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 5 (vii) It is contended that the mediation report makes it very clear that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. As per the terms of the settlement the petitioner has already paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the Opposite Party No.1 (Jayanta Kumar Swain). (viii) The very purpose of referring the matter for mediation was to allow the parties to settle their dispute amicably. As reported by the Mediator, there has been an amicable settlement between the parties and, hence, it would be just and proper to quash the proceeding as prayed for. (ix) In the aforesaid circumstances, it would be just and proper to quash the proceeding in C.T. No.1101 of 2024 pending in the court of the learned JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar which arises out of Chandrasekharpur P.S. Case No.509 of 2024. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:- (i) That the petitioner is a Customer Relation Officer of Nilachal Gramya Mahila Samabaya Samiti Ltd. Bhubaneswar. The said Nilachal Gramya Mahila Samabaya Samiti Ltd. has been discharging the duties of Mahila Bank and the petitioner also discharging her duty as Collection Agent of the said bank since 09.09.2015. (ii) The petitioner has been collecting daily deposits from the customers of the bank by attending door to door from the account holder on daily basis. The duties of the petitioner to Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 6 collect and receipt the amounts from the customers of the bank and entered passbook in the respective account holder so far as the deposits are concerned. The petitioner has also deposited the daily collections in Nilachal Gramya Mahila Samabaya Samiti Ltd., Bhubaneswar on day-to-day basis. While the matters stood thus, the Internal Committee of the said Nilachal Gramya Mahila Samabaya Samiti Ltd., Bhubaneswar audited the accounts of the customer found that the petitioner though collected daily deposits from the account holders but did not deposit the exact amounts of collection in their respective accounts. In the said process, the petitioner mis-appropriated huge amount of rupees i.e. more than Rs.21,00,000/- of the Nilachal Gramya Mahila Samabaya Samiti Ltd., Bhubaneswar. When the Opposite Party No.1 being the Managing Director and Secretary of the said Nilachal Gramya Mahila Samabaya Samiti Ltd. called the petitioner regarding the audit discrepancies. The petitioner did not turn up to the bank and remained on unauthorized absence since 20.6.2024 till date. Finding no other alternative, the Opposite Party No.1 lodged FIR against the petitioner regarding intentional cheating and fraudulent manner by committing criminal breach of trust misappropriated the banks for an amount of more than Rs.21,00,000/- on 27.6.2024 before the Chandrasekharpur Police Station. Chandra Sekharpur Police has registered the said FIR on 21.6.2024 vide FIR No.509 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 7 and registered the case under Sections 409, 506 and 34 IPC and conducted investigation against the petitioner. (iii) The petitioner instead of assisting the investigating officer had approached this Court in ABLAPL No. 6867 of 2024. This Court has granted interim bail to the petitioner on 18.7.2024 and based on such interim order, the petitioner has never assisted or cooperated to the Investigating Officer of the said case. During pendency of the said bail application, this Court vide order dated 12.8.2025 has referred the said case to the Orissa High Court Mediation Centre for settlement of the amount of the bank which has been misappropriated by the petitioner which is a public money. Though three dates have been fixed by the Orissa High Court Mediation Centre but the petitioner did not agree to pay any amount to the bank and disagreed for settlement. Finally, this Court vide order dated 17.10.2025 has rejected the ABLAPL No.6867 of 2024 treating it as an economic offences and directed the petitioner to surrender before the Learned JMFC (II), Bhubaneswar. (iv) Immediately thereafter, the petitioner instead of complying the order of this Court by surrendering herself before the learned court below had again filed the present CRLMC No.4883 of 2025. This Court vide order dated 24.11.2025 while issued notices to the Opp. Parties as an interim measure directed that on an application filed by the petitioner before the Court in seisin over the matter seeking adjournment of the case, the court Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 8 in seisin over the matter shall do well to adjourn the case for a period of 8 weeks. In the said process, the petitioner also did not surrender before the Court below and did not participate in the investigation process. This Court vide order 27.02.2026 has been pleased to refer the matter again to the Orissa High Court Mediation Centre to settle the dispute amicably. (v) The said Mediation was successful on 18.3.2026 and the issue was settled between the petitioner and the Opposite Party No.1 wherein the petitioner is agreed to pay a sum of Rs.18,65,074/- to the Opposite Party No.1 within a period of 3 years. The petitioner had also paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 78.3.2026 and the rest amount of Rs.13,65,074/- will be paid to the Opposite Party No.1 by March, 2029. The petitioner shall pay Rs.3,00,000/- for the first year, Rs.5,00,000/- for second year and Rs.5,65,074/- in third year. (vi) It is submitted that now the question will be decided whether the petitioner who has committed criminal conspiracy with an intentional to cheat to the bank as well as public by committing criminal breach of trust at large can escape from prosecution after settlement of the issue before the mediation by refunding the misappropriated public money to the bank and also escape from the criminal liability, the petitioner has committed in the society. The offence committed under Section 409 of IPC clearly stipulates that criminal breach of trust by a public servant or an agent of the bank which is coming under the cognizable offence Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 9 and where the punishment of imprisonment is allowed for 10 years as well as fine also. The petitioner has never cooperated with Investigating Officer. She has never attended the court below. She has always taken the benefit of interim order from time to time by filing cases before this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. as well as Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./ 528 of BNSS. (vii) He also placed reliance on the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal1 wherein the Supreme Court has fixed the guideline for invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and decided where the High Court has used the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (viii) He also placed reliance in the case of Dinesh Sharma Vs. Emgee Cables and Communications Ltd. & Another2 wherein the Apex Court has decided that “economic offences by their very nature lie beyond the domain of mere dispute between private party and the High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offenders is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance thus it can be concluded that economic offences by their very nature stand on the different footing than other offences and have wider ramifications. They constitute a class apart. Economic offence effects the economy of the country as a whole and pose a serious threat to the financial health of 1 1992 supplementary (1) SCC 335 2 2025 INSC 571 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 10 the country. If such offences are viewed likely the confident and trust of the public will be shaken”. (ix) Further, the Apex Court in the case of Kurukshetra University and Another v. State of Haryana & Another3 has observed that: “it surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. it could quash a First Information Report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the F.I.R. It ought to be realized that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.” (x) The Apex Court in case of Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujurat4 has observed that: “the High court while deciding the case u/s 482 should have considered the seriousness of allegation and conduct of the appellant petitioners and the criminal antecedent and the petitioner was not entitled to the relieve of quashing of FIR merely because they had entered into a settlement with the complainant. In para 16- The Hon'ble Apex Court held that bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down in the decisions of this Court, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the application for quashing the First Information Report in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has adverted to two significant circumstances. Each of 3 1977 (4) SCC 451 4 decided on 14.10.2017 reported in MANU/SC/1241/2017 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 11 them has a bearing on whether the exercise of the jurisdiction Under Section 482 to quash the FIR would subserve or secure the ends of justice or prevent an abuse of the process of the court. The first is that the Appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against them under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. the second is that the Appellants have criminal antecedents, reflected in the chart which has been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. The High Court adverted to the modus operandi which had been followed by the Appellants in grabbing valuable parcels of land and noted that in the past as well, they were alleged to have been connected with such nefarious activities by opening bogus bank accounts. It was in this view of the matter that the High Court observed that in a case involving extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the Appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. We agree with the view of the High Court. The present case, as the allegations in the FIR would demonstrate, is not merely one involving a private dispute over a land transaction between two contesting parties. The case involves allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation of the complainant of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. If the allegations in the FIR are construed as they stand, it is evident that they implicate serious offences having a bearing on a vital societal interest in securing the probity of titles to or interest in land. Such offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime. In these circumstances, the High Court was eminently justified in declining to Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 12 quash the FIR which had been registered Under Sections 384,467, 468, 471,120-B & 506(2) of the Penal Code.” (xi) In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab5, the three judge bench of Apex Court has decided the principle of law and the power of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR at para-61 the power of the High Cout in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offence under section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court has to accord due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromises between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences 5 (2012) 10 SCC 303 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 13 under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc. cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or in the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In these category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression, prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 14 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. (xii) In view of the above discussions, since the attitude of the petitioner to escape from the criminal liability filed cases after cases before this Court and on the ground of settlement of dispute before the Mediation Centre Orissa High Court and agreed to pay the misappropriated amount within a period of three years cannot be a ground to quashing the FIR as it creates the moral harmony of the society and encourage the others to do the said crime, the entire community is aggrieved. Hence the application for 528 of BNSS filed by the petitioner may be dismissed. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 6. This present case is about the criminal offences that has civil characteristics and flavour by itself. Both the parties have agreed to the fact that there has been misappropriation of funds by the present petitioner which has given rise to the series of litigation that has already been discussed in the factual matrix of this case. It is important to know in this case the matter has been referred to mediation wherein the matter was settled between the parties subject to the payment of a sum of Rs. 18,65,074/- by the Petitioner to the Opposite Party No.1 within a period of three years. The petitioner had also paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 78.3.2026 and the rest amount of Rs.13,65,074/- will be Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 15 paid to the Opposite Party No.1 by March, 2029. The petitioner shall pay Rs.3,00,000/- for the first year, Rs.5,00,000/- for second year and Rs.5,65,074/- in third year. 7. In the present case the FIR lodged against the Petitioner includes criminal offence. These sections read at parlance with the facts of this case it would be appropriate to say that this involves criminal offences which are financial in nature. The charges against the Petitioner as per the sections of IPC are, “409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;” read with, “34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” 8. The Courts are increasingly relying on Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms, where one of them is Mediation. Although all criminal cases cannot be referred for the same, if there is even the slightest Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 16 possibility for the dispute of commercial, financial, corporate or similar economic matters relating to money management of criminal nature are involved, in that case, the matter can be settled amicably between the parties through ADR. 9. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the criminal cases of commercial or financial matters may be appropriately quashed based on the settlement of the dispute by the parties. “16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.” 10. In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that the High Courts can quash the criminal proceedings if there is a compromise between the offender and the victim which has been held as, “61. …But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or 6 (2017) 9 SCC 641 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 17 personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 11. Delhi High Court in the case of Yashpal Chaudhrani v. State (State of NCT Delhi)7, it has been reiterated that when the criminal offences are predominantly civil character with commercial transaction disputes, and there is a genuine resolution on equitable terms, the criminal proceedings can be quashed as per the following, “55. Though the above-noted authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court have consistently laid down the broad principles governing the exercise of power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for bringing an end to the criminal process, for addressing the concerns noted at the outset and future guidance of trial courts, some of the crucial ones may be flagged as under:— 7 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8179 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 18 (iv). If the criminal case has “overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character”, particularly if it arises out of “commercial” (financial, mercantile, partnership or such other) transaction - and this would include the “cheque bouncing cases” under Section 138 N.I. Act - or “matrimonial dispute” or “family dispute”, genuine resolution on equitable terms, in entirety, by the parties should result in criminal proceedings being quashed.” 12. In this present case, the petitioner and the respondent have come to an amicable settlement through mediation dated 18.03.2026 and thus understood that there is no need for any further criminal proceedings. V. CONCLUSION: 13. In view of the foregoing analysis and upon careful consideration of the material facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and there is no need of any further proceedings in relation to the same facts and circumstances unless there has been a non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the mediation settlement. Accordingly, the present CRLMC deserved to be allowed and all the other criminal proceedings are quashed. 14. Accordingly, this CRLMC stands allowed. 15. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 15th May, 2026/