Orissa High Court
Debasis Rana vs State Of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite … on 20 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1085 of 2026
Debasis Rana .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC
Mr. Jaideep Subudhi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order No. ORDER
02. 20.04.2026
1.
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the
allegation of assaulting the informant is made, has
prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding
initiated against him vide C.T. Case No.863 of 2024
arising out of Kharbelanagar P.S. Case No.225 dated
06.05.2024 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M,
Bhubaneswar.
3. Heard.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
They also submit that the Petitioner was only present at
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 21-Apr-2026 18:58:01 the time of occurrence and he is no way connected to
Page 1 of 6
the offences alleged against him. A joint affidavit has
been filed to that effect. They, accordingly, pray for
allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC.
5. The relevant portions of the said joint affidavit filed by
both the parties are extracted hereunder:-
“xxx xxx xxx
1. That, the Opposite Party No.2/ Informant had
lodged the FIR vide Kharbela Nagar P.S. Case
No.225 dtd. 6.5.2024 corresponding to C.T.
Case No.863 of 2024 now pending in the court
of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar for alleged
commission of offences U/s.341,323,294,324,
34 of IPC.
2. That, the name of the present petitioner
(Deponent No.1) was not specifically
mentioned in the FIR and came to be reflected
during the course of investigation and
subsequently charge sheet was submitted
against the present petitioner (Deponent
No.1).
3. That as per the understanding of the Opposite
Party No.2 (Deponent No.2), the petitioner
was present at the spot but the Opposite Party
No.2 does not wish to pursue the allegations
against him
4. That, with the intervention of friends, family
members and well wishers, we have
voluntarily and amicably resolved the matter
only in so far as it relates to the present
petitioner without affecting the other accused.
5. That, the Opposite Party No.2 has no objection
if the FIR and consequential criminal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
proceedings are quashed only in respect of the
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
present petitioner (Deponent No.1) namely
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 21-Apr-2026 18:58:01 Debasis Rana.
Page 2 of 6
6. That, it is expressly clarified that this
compromise is limited to the present petitioner
alone, and the Opp.Party No.2 intends to
pursue the case against the other accused
persons in accordance with law.
7. That, we the deponents file this joint affidavit,
for amicably settlement has been arrived
between us at voluntarily without any
coercion, threat, undue influence or pressure
from any quarter.
8. That, we the deponents file this joint affidavit
in support of the accompanying petition under
section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section –
482 of Cr.P.C) for quashing of proceedings qua
the present petitioner only in the interest of
justice.
9. That the present affidavit shall not be
construed as withdrawal of allegations in
respect of any other accused persons except the
present petitioner (Deponent No.1).
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
required to examine the nature and gravity of the
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 21-Apr-2026 18:58:01
allegations, the real genesis of the dispute, the stage of
Page 3 of 6
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 does not wish to proceed
further with the criminal case qua the Petitioner only
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 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 continuance of the impugned criminal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
proceeding qua the present Petitioner would amount to
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 21-Apr-2026 18:58:01
Page 4 of 6
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa 1
Date: 21-Apr-2026 18:58:01 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499
2
(2008) 16 SCC 1Page 5 of 6
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 F.I.R. in Kharbelanagar P.S.
Case No.225 dated 06.05.2024 relating to the present
Petitioner only is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the
entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., C.T.
Case No.863 of 2024 pending before the Court of
learned S.D.J.M, Bhubaneswar also relating to the
Petitioner only stands quashed.
13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 21-Apr-2026 18:58:01
Page 6 of 6
