Orissa High Court
Alok Panda & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Anr. …….. Opposite … on 6 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
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:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: P.A.
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 06-Apr-2026 17:54:44
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
Signature Not Verified 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed 1 by: LITARAM MURMU
AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499
Designation: P.A.
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 06-Apr-2026 17:54:44
4our 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed 2 by: LITARAM MURMU
(2008) 16 SCC 1
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: P.A.
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 06-Apr-2026 17:54:44