p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1324 of 2026 Madan Mohan Nayak …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Ramakanta Nayak, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 29.04.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the allegation of assaulting the informant/ Opposite Party No.2 is made, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him vide G.R. Case No.83/2025 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C-III, Cuttack. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner 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 Petitioner. A joint affidavit has been filed to that effect. They, Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-May-2026 11:07:48 Signature Not Verified p. 2 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. Whereas the parties are friends and known to each other for last 15 years. 2. Whereas the party of the First Part lodged an FIR against the party of the Second part due to a dispute arising out of a trivial issue between the parties. 3. Whereas the FIR was registered as the PS Case No.25 of 2025 of Bidanasi Police Station u/s.296 and 351(2) BNS and in connection there with Criminal Proceeding in GR Case No.83/2025 is pending in the court of Learned JMFC-III, Cuttack. 4. Whereas during pendency of the above Criminal Proceeding the dispute has amicable settled between the parties and they have arrived at a compromise voluntarily and now they are living peacefully without any misunderstanding between them. NOW THIS DEED WITNESSES AS FOLLOWS:- 5. That since the date of this deed there is no misunderstanding between the parties and the party of the First Part has no grievance against the party of the Second Part. 6. That the party of the First Part shall not pursue the above Criminal Proceeding any further. 7. That the party of the First Part shall have no objection if the party of the Second Part moves the Hon’ble High Court for quashing of the Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-May-2026 11:07:48 Signature Not Verified p. 3 above Criminal Proceeding u/s.528 BNSS, 2023. xxx xxx xxx” 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 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-May-2026 11:07:48 Signature Not Verified p. 4 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 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 1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-May-2026 11:07:48 Signature Not Verified p. 5 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 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 Bidanasi P.S. Case 2 (2008) 16 SCC 1 Designation: Personal Assistant p. 6 No.25 of 2025 is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., G.R. Case No.83 of 2025 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C-III, Cuttack also stands quashed. 13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant