IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1840 of 2026 Sanjaya Kumar Ghosh @ Sanjib Ghosh …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Pravash Chandra Jena, Adv. versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC Mr. Pravu Pityarthi Kumar Pandit, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 02. ORDER 06.07.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the allegation of torching the vehicle of the informant is made, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him vide G.R. Case No.267/2026 arising out of Rasol P.S. Case No.93/2026 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Hindol. 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 present Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Jul-2026 10:58:55 Signature Not Verified Petitioner. A joint affidavit to that effect at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2 has been filed. They, accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC. 5. The relevant portions of the said joint affidavit are extracted hereunder:- “xxx xxx xxx 1. I, Khirod Dehury @ Khirod Kumar Dehury aged about 48 years, son of Late Gangadhar Dehury of Village-Brahmpur, P.S. Rasol, Dist.-Dhenkanal, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 2. That I am the informant of G.R. Case No.267/2026 arising out of Rasol P.S. Case No.93/2026 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M, Hindol. 3. That I lodged the F.I.R against the accused person in alleging many more things and that I have been lodged hurriedly being mentally stressed without verifying the veracity of the allegation genuineness against the accused persons. 4. That however after lodging the F.I.R I made confidentially query and it has been came to my knowledge that the petitioner of the above CRLMC have never been committed any criminal action against me on the allegation and thereby by way of this affidavit I humbly pray that if the above criminal proceedings have been quashed against the above named petitioner for all times to come then I have no objection at all. 5. That after lodging of the F.I.R the disputed fact between me with the above named petitioner also have been made amicable settlement both we are also having cordial relationship without any difficulties in any manner whatsoever. Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Jul-2026 10:58:55 Signature Not Verified 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances if the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner will be quashed then I have no objection at all. 7. That the facts stated above all are true to the best of my knowledge and information and documentation supplied by me. 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Jul-2026 10:58:55 Signature Not Verified 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, 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. In order to strengthen the case of the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the decisions in the cases of (1) Gyan Singh Vrs. State of Punjab1 (2) B.S. Joshi Vrs. State of Haryana2 (3) Nikhil Merchant Vrs. CBI3 (4) Manoj Sharma Vrs. State4 (5) Narinder Singh and Ors. Vrs. State of Punjab and anr. 5 1 (2012)10SC303 2 (2003) 4 SCC 675 3 (2008)9SCC677 4 (2008)16SCC1 5 Crl.Appeal No.686/2014 (SLP (Crl.) No.9547 of 2013 Date of judgment 27.03.2014 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Jul-2026 10:58:55 Signature Not Verified 9. In fact, in the case of Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika6 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 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. State7 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 6 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 7 (2008) 16 SCC 1 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Jul-2026 10:58:55 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 Rasol P.S. Case No.93/2026 is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., G.R. Case No.267/2026 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Hindol also stands quashed. 13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant