IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4977 of 2025 Bikash Behari Pattnaik & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo, Adv. (in CRLMC No.4977 of 2025) Mr. Dilip Kumar Parida, Adv. (in CRLMC No.4961 of 2025) -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Ms. Bijayalaxmi Tripathy, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 16.01.2026 CRLMC No.4977 of 2025 with CRLMC No.4961 of 2025 09. 1. These matters are taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Since common question of facts and law are involved in both the above mentioned CRLMCs, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order. However, this Court feels it apposite to deal with the CRLMC No.4977 of 2025 as the leading case for proper and effective adjudication of both the cases. 3. In the CRLMC No.4977 of 2025, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them vide G.R. Case No.830 of 2023 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Jan-2026 13:38:58 Signature Not Verified arising out of Mahila (Cuttack) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Cuttack. 4. Heard. 5. It is well settled that although the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 342, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are non- compoundable, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is not denuded of power to quash the criminal proceeding where the dispute is essentially private and matrimonial in nature and the parties have voluntarily arrived at a genuine and complete settlement. The underlying object of such exercise is to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Where the continuation of the criminal proceeding, despite an amicable settlement, would serve no fruitful purpose and would only perpetuate bitterness between the parties, the High Court would be justified in interdicting the prosecution, particularly when the informant herself has unequivocally expressed her consent for such quashing. 6. Considering the contents of the joint affidavit filed by the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2/ informant and following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another1, and two other 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Jan-2026 13:38:58 Signature Not Verified reported cases of this Court in Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four others v. State of Orissa and four others2, and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and another –vrs.- State of Orissa and Another3, wherein this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in allowing such proceedings to continue the criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case as it will only lead to abuse the process of law. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioners vide G.R. Case No.830/2023 arising out of Mahila (Cuttack) P.S. Case No.171/2023 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Cuttack, is hereby quashed. 8. Both the CRLMCs are, accordingly, disposed of. 9. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta 2 2014 (II) OLR 29 3 2014 (II) OLR 452 Designation: Personal Assistant