IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.107 of 2026 Bishnu Charan Mohanty …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Ananta Narayan Pattanayak, Adv. -versus- Hemanta Kumar Mohanty …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Biswabhusan Das, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 19.03.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner being the issuer of the cheques in question in favour of the sole Opposite Party, has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him in connection with 1CC Case No.61 of 2018 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the sole Opposite Party in one tone submit that both the parties are ready for amicable settlement of the dispute involved herein. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that in the meantime, the Petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- (Rupees five lakh eighty thousand only) to the Opposite Party by Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 19-Mar-2026 16:45:05 Signature Not Verified way of a Demand Draft bearing No.195496 dated 17.03.2026. He further contends that the cheques from which the present CRLMC arises, are of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only). A joint affidavit has been filed to that effect. In the said joint affidavit, it has been stated that the Opposite Party has already received the above noted amount. They, accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC. 5. It is well settled that although the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is 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 where 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 / informant and Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 19-Mar-2026 16:45:05 Signature Not Verified since the Opposite Party has received the above noted amount as has also been reflected in the said 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. The joint affidavit filed by the parties be kept on record. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide 1CC Case No.61 of 2018 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur 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