p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1367 of 2025 Smt. Nishi Priyadarshini & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Suraj Mohanty, Adv. versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Debashish Nayak, AGA CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 06. ORDER 14.07.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioners against whom the allegation of committing fraud is made, have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them vide G.R. Case No.2192/2022 arising out of Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No.317 dated 15.09.2022 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Berhampur. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2/informant in one tone submit that both the parties are ready for amicable settlement of the dispute involved herein. They also submit that due to some misunderstanding the above noted F.I.R was lodged against the present Petitioners. A joint affidavit to that effect at the instance Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-Jul-2026 18:28:42 Signature Not Verified p. 2 of both the parties has been filed. They, accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC. 5. The relevant portions of the said affidavit are extracted hereunder:- “xxx xxx xxx 1. That, we are the petitioners and Opposite Party No.2 (informant) respectively in the above-mentioned case. 2. That, due to commercial dispute, the informant/ Opp. Party No.2 had lodged the FIR against the present Petitioners. 3. That, during pendency of the aforesaid CRLMC, the dispute have been amicably settled and the informant/ Opp. Party No.2 has not grievance against the petitioners and does not wish to proceed further. 4. That, the informant/ Opp. Party No.2 has no objection, if Baidyanathpur P.S Case No.317 of 2022 corresponding to G.R Case No.2192 of 2022, pending before the learned S.D.J.M, Berhampur, is quashed against the petitioners. This affidavit is filed in support of such settlement. 5. That, earlier the informant/ Opp. Party No.2 had filed the affidavit, further to that, as per the direction of the Hon’ble Court, this joint affidavit is being filed. 6. That, we are swearing this affidavit for the purpose of favourable consideration of the CRLMC application of the petitioners and to quash the criminal proceeding against them. 7. That, we are swearing this affidavit out of our sweet will and without any threat, coercion, iducement, pressure or promise. We will not dispute this affidavit in future. 8. That, the facts stated above are true to the best of our knowledge. Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-Jul-2026 18:28:42 Signature Not Verified p. 3 xxx xxx xxx” 6. This Court has considered the affidavit filed by both the 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 No.2 has joined the Petitioners in filing a joint affidavit and has categorically stated that he does not wish to proceed further with the criminal case and that the Petitioners are 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, Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-Jul-2026 18:28:42 Signature Not Verified p. 4 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 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 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 1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-Jul-2026 18:28:42 Signature Not Verified p. 5 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 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 Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No.317 dated 15.09.2022 is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., G.R. Case No.2192/2022 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Berhampur also stands quashed. 2 (2008) 16 SCC 1 Designation: Personal Assistant p. 6 13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant