IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.442 of 2026 Mustakim Khan @ Babunu &. Petitioner(s) Mr. Debidutta Mohapatra, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. &. Opposite Party(s) Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC Ms. Saswata Patnaik, Adv. CORAM: HON9BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 09.03.2026 03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner alleged to be an accused based on the confessional statement of the co- accused persons who are alleged to have been involved in a case of attempt to murder and robbery, has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him in connection with G.R. Case No.2041 of 2025 arising out of Badabazar P.S. Case No.364 of 2025 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Berhampur. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 in one tone submit that both the parties are ready for amicable Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Mar-2026 17:21:23 Signature Not Verified settlement of the dispute involved herein. They also file a joint affidavit to that effect. In the said joint affidavit, it has been stated that the Petitioner has been entangled in this case mistakenly. They, accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC. 5. It is well settled that although the offences under Sections 310(2), 311, 109(1), 115(2), 118(2) & 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are non-compoundable, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is not denuded of power to quash the criminal proceeding which arises out of mistakenly and the parties have voluntarily arrived at a genuine and complete settlement. The underlying object of such exercise is to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Where the continuation of the criminal proceeding, despite an amicable settlement, would serve no fruitful purpose and would only perpetuate bitterness between the parties, the High Court would be justified in interdicting the prosecution, particularly when the informant himself has unequivocally expressed his consent for such quashing. 6. Considering the contents of the joint affidavit filed by the Petitioner and the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3/ informant and victim and since the Petitioner has been entangled in this case mistakenly as has also been reflected in the said Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Mar-2026 17:21:23 Signature Not Verified joint affidavit, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in allowing such proceedings to continue the criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case as it will only lead to abuse the process of law. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in respect of the Petitioner only vide G.R. Case No.2041 of 2025 arising out of Badabazar P.S. Case No.364 of 2025 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Berhampur stands quashed. 8. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. 9. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant