IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 1392 of 2026 Suresh Chandra Mishra ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Sapan Kumar Lenka, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ……. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC Mr. Susanta Kumar Sethy, Adv. (for O.P.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 11.05.2026 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 him in Balipatna P.S. Case No.13 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. Case No.373 of 2009 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C.(O), Bhubaneswar. 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 04.05.2026 has been filed by the parties. 5. The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by both the parties is extracted hereunder: Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2026 11:58:34 Signature Not Verified 2 “xxx xxx xxx “8. That in the meantime due to the interference of relatives and well wishers we both reserved out misunderstanding and the dispute has been amicably settled. Further of present both are staying in petitioner’s house and leading a happy conjugal life as husband and wife. 9. That the opposite party no.2 has no grievance against the petitioner. Further she would have no objection if the above criminal proceeding shall be quashed. Since the opposite party no.2 no more interested to proceeded further in the case neither continuance of the criminal proceeding may create domestic misunderstanding in future. 10. That under such circumstances the criminal proceeding arising out of Balipatna Ps Case No.13/2009, which corresponds to GR Case No.373/2009 pending before the J.M.F.C.(O), Bhubaneswar may be quashed.” 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 she does not wish to proceed further with the criminal case and that Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2026 11:58:34 Signature Not Verified 3 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 herself, 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 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 1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2026 11:58:34 Signature Not Verified 4 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 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 criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioner in Balipatna P.S. Case No.13 of 2009, corresponding to 2 (2008) 16 SCC 1 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2026 11:58:34 5 G.R. Case No.373 of 2009, pending before the learned J.M.F.C.(O), Bhubaneswar is hereby quashed. 13. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.