IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 922 of 2026 Alok Panda & Ors. ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Sidhartha Sankar Ray (2), Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha & Anr. .……. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 06.04.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioners have filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against them in Thelkoli P.S. Case No.105 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No.590 of 2026 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur. 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 30.03.2026 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: 06-Apr-2026 17:54:44 Signature Not Verified 2 “xxx xxx xxx “3) That it is humbly submitted here that the petitioners and the informant are belongs to same locality and while talking to each other over phone there was a communication gap between the parties for which out of anger the informant had registered the present case against the petitioners. 4) That it is humbly submitted here that in the mean time after intervention of well wishers and village gentries, the matter have been amicably settled among the parties and both the parties have no grievance against each other and wanted to maintain a cordial relationship with each other. 5) that it is respectfully submitted here that in the facts and circumstances of the present case both the parties do not want to proceed further in this case.” 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Apr-2026 17:54:44 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 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 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 1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Apr-2026 17:54:44 Signature Not Verified 4 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 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 FIR in Thelkoli P.S. Case No. 105 of 2026 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding 2 (2008) 16 SCC 1 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Apr-2026 17:54:44 5 arising therefrom, i.e., G.R. Case No.590 of 2026 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, also stands quashed. 13. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.