IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.744 of 2026 Prabhat Kumar Panda @ Mitu .... Petitioner(s) Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Senior Advocate along with associates Mr. Puspamitra Mohapatra, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 13.03.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the proceeding in connection with Bhanjanagar P.S Case No.113(6)/07 dated 07.05.2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No.274 of 2007 pending in the Court of the learned SDJM, Bhanjanagar. 3. The brief fact of the case, as alleged in the FIR, is that on 07.05.2003 at about 8.00 P.M., the Petitioner and his associate entered into the house of the Informant and kidnapped his sister, named, Rasmi Rani Pattnayak and threatened him not to lodge any report against them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to misunderstanding between the parties, the FIR was lodged. However, Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-Mar-2026 17:41:50 Signature Not Verified 2 the matter has been amicably settled between the parties in the meantime. The Opposite Party No.2 has filed an affidavit which shall form part of the record. 5. Perused the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2. The relevant contents thereof are extracted hereunder: — “I, Bhabani Sankar Pattnayak, aged about 52 years, son of Haricharan Pattnayak, adopted son of Damodar Pattnayak, At-Goudia Padhal, P.S.- Bhanjanagar, Dist-Ganjam, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:- 1. That I am the Opposite party No.2 in the aforesaid CRLMC and informant in this case. 2. That That the opposite party No.3 is the sister of the deponent who left the house of the deponent and thereafter she married to the petitioner on 19.06.2007 and by the time when the opposite party No.3 left the house of the deponent, she was major. 3. That, the deponent humbly submits there that after the solemnization of the marriage, the petitioner and the opposite party no.3 are leading happy conjugal life and out of their wedlock they blessed with two female children, who are born on 16.01.2011 and 20.11.2017. 4. That in view of the above development, the deponent is not willing to proceed with the case and he has no objection if the criminal proceeding Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-Mar-2026 17:41:50 Signature Not Verified 3 initiated at his instance be quashed against the petitioner. 5. That the deponent in order to substantiate his identity files herewith the self-attested Xerox copy of the Aadhaar Card along with this affidavit. 6. That the facts stated in this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and the same is solemnized on my free will without any coercion or any extraneous influence.” 6. The Opposite Party No.3 has also filed a joint affidavit which shall form part of the record. The relevant contents thereof are extracted hereunder: — “I, Rasmi Rani Pattnayak @ Panda, aged about 40 years, Wife of Prabhat Kumar Panda, At-Kalinga Nagar, P.O./P.S.-Bhanjanagar, Dist.-Ganjam and D/o.-Hari Charan Pattnayak, At-Goudia Padhal, P.S.-Bhanjanagar, Dist.-Ganjam, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:- 1. That I am the Opposite party No.3 in the aforesaid CRLMC and legally married wife of the petitioner. 2. That the deponent left her parental house while she was aged about 22 years and married to the petitioner on 19.06.2007 and since then she is leading a happy conjugal life with the petitioner. Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-Mar-2026 17:41:50 Signature Not Verified 4 3. That the deponent further submits that out of wedlock with the petitioner, they blessed with two daughters, now aged about 15 years and 09 years respectively and both of them are prosecuting their studies. 4. That in view of the above development the deponent is not willing to proceed with the case and she has no objection if the proceeding will be quashed. 5. That the deponent in order to substantiate her identity proof, filing herewith the self attested identity proof i.e. her Aadhaar Card. 6. That the facts stated in this affidavit are true to the best of knowledge and belief of the deponent.” 7. Having perused the joint affidavits filed by the parties, this Court is of the view that the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is well settled. Such power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. At the same time, it is equally settled that the High Court, in appropriate cases, is not powerless to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non- compoundable offences, if the facts and circumstances so warrant and if continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. This Court is conscious of the fact that quashing of criminal proceedings should not be permitted to defeat the object of special Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-Mar-2026 17:41:50 Signature Not Verified 5 statutes. However, the peculiar facts of the present case, coupled with the unequivocal stand of the informant and the subsequent developments, persuade this Court to hold that the ends of justice would be better served by putting an end to the criminal proceeding rather than allowing it to continue mechanically. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and upon careful perusal of the joint affidavit filed by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. In the circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceeding at this stage would serve no useful or meaningful purpose and would only result in unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings and avoidable burden on the docket of the Court. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the CRLMC stands allowed. Consequently, the proceeding in connection with Bhanjanagar P.S Case No.113(6)/07 dated 07.05.2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No.274 of 2007 pending in the Court of the learned SDJM, Bhanjanagar, is hereby quashed. 11. The CRLMC is disposed of, accordingly. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali