IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1643 of 2026 Pinky@Pinki Singh & Ors. ...… Petitioner(s) Mr. Manoj Mishra, Senior Advocate along with associates -Versus- State of Odisha (OPID) & Anr. ……. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Anil Kumar Nayak, Standing Counsel for OPID Mr. Basudev Mishra, Advocate for O.P No.2 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER Order No. 09.07.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioners have filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioners in connection with Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 558 of 2024, pending in the file of the learned Court of Presiding Officer, Designated Court, under O.P.I.D. Act, Sambalpur, in C.T. Case No. 05 of 2024. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The informant/Opposite Party No.2 has no interest to proceed with the case. Moreover, the informant / Opposite Party No.2 has already received the amount with interest and she has also dissolved the Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Jul-2026 18:17:37 Signature Not Verified dispute with the petitioners. After receiving the amount and resolving the dispute, the Opposite Party No.2 along with her father had made an affidavit stating therein that the Opposite Party No.2/informant has already received the amount along with interest and have no grievance against the petitioners. For which, the Opposite Party No.2/informant aforesaid affidavit dated 24.03.2026 praying therein not to proceed against the RHI Company and accused persons. There is absolutely no dispute pending between the petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2 and they are living peacefully in their respective places. The Opposite Party No.2 is not willing to proceed with the present criminal case. 4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, on the other hand, confirms the factum of settlement and submits that the Opposite Party No.2 does not intent to proceed further with the case. 5. On perusal of the case record, it appears that the Opposite Party No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 18.05.2026, wherein it is stated as follows: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 2. That in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled between the Opp. Party No.2 and the Petitioners. An affidavit has already been sworn by me before notary Sambalpur, stating therein that I Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Jul-2026 18:17:37 Signature Not Verified have already received the settlement amount which includes the interest and there is no due pending with the petitioners. There is also absolutely no dispute pending between us and we are living peacefully in our respective places. Therefore, I do not want to proceed with the Jharsuguda Sadar P.S. Case No.558 of 2024, pending in the file of the learned Court of Presiding Officer, Designated Court, under O.P.I.D. Act, 2011, Sambalpur in C.T Case No.05 of 2024.” 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for the OPID submits that though it seems to be purely contractual dispute, but, it has public element involved. Hence, he strongly objects to any kind of quashing of this CRLMC. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the contents of the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2 and the fact that the dispute is essentially of a financial/contractual nature which has been amicably resolved, this Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceeding would serve no useful purpose. 8. The Supreme Court in cases such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab1, Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.2 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.3 has held that criminal proceedings involving predominantly civil disputes can 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 (2014) 6 SCC 46 3 (2019) 5 SCC 688 Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Jul-2026 18:17:37 Signature Not Verified be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (erstwhile Section of the 482 Cr.P.C.) when parties have settled the matter amicably. 9. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh4, has held that the Court has to be mindful of the fact that the 1989 Act (i.e. the SC/St (PoA) Act) has been enacted keeping in view the expressed constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities; as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste based atrocities. However, when such offence is primarily private or civil in nature or where the alleged offence not committed on account of the caste of the victim or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. It further held that in such cases, the Court ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim had entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her freeway and not on account of any duress. 10. In the present case, the alleged offence arises out of a monetary dispute between Petitioners and Opposite Party No.2 4 2022 (13) SCC 625 Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Jul-2026 18:17:37 Signature Not Verified and does not involve any element of heinous crime or public interest. The matter having been settled and the complainant having received the amount, the possibility of conviction is remote. 11. Accordingly, in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (erstwhile Section of the 482 Cr.P.C.), this Court deems it fit and proper to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioners in connection with Jharsuguda P.S. Case No.558 of 2024, pending in the file of the learned Court of Presiding Officer, Designated Court, under O.P.I.D. Act, Sambalpur, in C.T. Case No. 05 of 2024. 12. The CRLMC stands allowed and disposed of. 13. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 14. A copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial Court for information. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali