IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 641 of 2026 Navneet Arora ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarat Kumar Gajendra, Sr. Adv. along with associate -Versus- State of Odisha & Anr. ……. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Raj Bhushan Dash, ASC Mr. Laxman Pradhan, Adv. (for O.P.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 18.03.2026 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Mr. Laxman Pradhan, learned Advocate enters appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party No2 and files Vakalatnama in Court today. The same be kept on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the FIR in Badagada P.S. Case Nos.16 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No.23 of 2026 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C. IV, Bhubaneswar. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 20-Mar-2026 16:45:26 Signature Not Verified 2 5. 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 09.03.2026 has been filed on record. 6. The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by both the parties is extracted hereunder: “xxx xxx xxx 7.That in view of the aforesaid facts, I, do not want to proceed any further with the Police Complaint I had filed and registered by Badagada Police, Bhubaneswar in P.S. Case No.16 Dt. 08.01.2026 U/s 74/77 NS R.w 67(A) IT Act, against the Applicant- Deponent No.1, pending in the Court of JMFC –IV, Bhubaneswar in C.T. No.23 of 2026 and prays the Hon’ble High Court to quash the aforesaid proceedings and be kind enough to dispose of the case. 8.That the aforesaid facts are true and the Applicant- Deponent No.1 Shri Navneet Arora is no way involved in the alleged crime and the complaint which has been registered by the Police whimsically slapping the charges against him U/s 74/77 BNS R.w 67(A) IT Act erroneously and harassed him in detaining in Police Custody the whole night of Dt.07.01.2026 until forwarded him to the Court which remanded him to Judicial Custody on Dt.08.01.2026 Bhubaneswar in bail Application No.65/2026 on Dt.16.01.2026. Under these circumstances, the Applicant-Deponent No.1, prays this Hon’ble High Court to be pleased to quash the aforesaid proceedings and be kind enough to relieve him of the aforesaid charges.” 7. 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 20-Mar-2026 16:45:26 Signature Not Verified 3 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. 8. In the present case, Opposite Party No.2 has joined the Petitioner in filing a sworn affidavit and has categorically stated that she does not wish to proceed further with the criminal case and that 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 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. 9. 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 20-Mar-2026 16:45:26 Signature Not Verified 4 continuance of the impugned criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and would not subserve the ends of justice. 10. 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 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. 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 1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 2 (2008) 16 SCC 1 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 20-Mar-2026 16:45:26 Signature Not Verified 5 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.” 12. 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. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Badagada P.S. Case No. 16 of 2026 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., C.T. Case No. 23 of 2026 pending before the learned J.M.F.C.-IV, Bhubaneswar, also stands quashed. 14. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.