IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.550 of 2026 Soubhagya Nayak & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Gyana Ranjan Dhal, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Chitta Ranjan Swain, AGA Mr. Akshaya Kumar Subudhi, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 03. ORDER 23.03.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioners against whom the allegation of domestic violence is made, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them vide C.T. Case No.92 of 2025 arising out of Nayapalli P.S. Case No.32 dated 01.02.2025 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C-III, Bhubaneswar. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioners 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 matrimonial dispute the above noted F.I.R was lodged against the Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:03:06 Signature Not Verified Petitioners. They further contend that in the meantime, the Petitioner No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2/informant are leading a happy conjugal life. A joint affidavit has been filed to that effect. They, accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC. 5. The relevant portion of the said joint affidavit filed by both the parties is extracted hereunder:- “xxx xxx xxx 1. That the matter has been amicably settled between the Petitioners (Soubhagya Nayak, Sagar Nayak, Dillip Nayak, Pratima Nayak) and the informant (Opp. Party No.2) Sanjukta Nayak, so the informant (Opposite Party No.2) is not willing to run the case anymore. 2. That this is a matrimonial dispute and as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, the informant (Opposite Party No.2) is now staying happily with the present petitioners in her matrimonial home. Soubhagya Nayak (Petitioner No.1) is the husband of the informant (Opposite Party No.2), Sanjukta Nayak. Sagar Nayak (Petitioner No.2), Dillip Nayak (Petitioner No.3) and Pratima Nayak (Petitioner No.4) are happens to be brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant (Opp. Party No.2) Sanjukta Nayak. The informant- Sanjukta Nayak and her husband (Petitioner No.1) Soubhagya Nayak are expecting their first child. 3. That the informant (Opp. Party No.2) Sanjukta Nayak does not have any objection if Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:03:06 Signature Not Verified the entire proceeding including the F.I.R against the Petitioners will be quashed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. That both the parties swearing this affidavit to state that the matter has been amicably settled between them in the meantime. 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 Petitioners in filing a sworn affidavit and has categorically stated that she does not wish to proceed further with the criminal case and that the Petitioners are not involved in the alleged occurrence. Thus, the Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:03:06 Signature Not Verified 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 1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:03:06 Signature Not Verified 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. 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. 2 (2008) 16 SCC 1 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:03:06 Signature Not Verified 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Nayapali P.S. Case No.32 dated 01.02.2025 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., C.T. Case No.92 of 2025 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C III, Bhubaneswar also stands quashed. 13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant