Orissa High Court
Kailash Chandra Ghose & vs State Of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite … on 6 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2370 of 2025
Kailash Chandra Ghose &
Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Basanta Kumar Das, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
Mr. Brundaban Rout, Adv. (for O.P. Nos.2 to 7)
CRLMC No.3223 of 2025
Bharat Charan Dutta @
Bharat Dutta & Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Brundaban Rout, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 06.04.2026
03.
1. These matters are taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. These two matters have been filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of two separate FIRs and
consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior
Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
that the matter has been settled between the parties
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2026 18:59:33
concerned.
Page 1 of 9
3. The CRLMC No.2370 of 2025 has been filed by the
Petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings
initiated against them vide Simulia P.S. Case No.233 of 2020
corresponding to C.T. Case No.710 of 2020 pending before
the learned J.M.F.C., Soro.
4. The CRLMC No.3223 of 2025 has been filed by the
Petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings
initiated against them vide Simulia P.S. Case No.232 of 2020
corresponding to C.T. Case No.709 of 2020 pending before
the learned J.M.F.C., Soro.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. F.I.R. No.233 of 2020 came to be registered on 26.09.2020
under Sections 294/307/323/325/341/506/34 of the I.P.C. at
the instance of the informant on the allegations that while
the informant’s husband was present at Barahpur Chhak,
Petitioner No.1 along with other Petitioners abused him in
filthy languages and assaulted him by means of wooden
planks, plastic pipe and bamboo lathi. In the meantime,
informant’s brother-in-law getting information rushed to
the spot and seeing the informant’s condition raised hullah.
Hearing hullah, her elder brother-in-law arrived at the spot.
The accused persons also abused them in filthy languages
and assaulted them. As such they all sustained grievous
bleeding injuries.
Page 2 of 9
7. F.I.R. No.232 of 2020 came to be registered on 26.09.2020
under Sections 294/323/325/341/506/34 of the I.P.C. at the
instance of the informant on the allegation that the
informant was present in the shop at Barahpur Bazar. Due
to previous grudge, the Petitioners called the informant out
of the shop and abused him in obscene languages and
assaulted him by means of Bhujali and lathi.
8. The charge sheet has been filed in both the matters and
the charges have also been framed. It is stated that the
parties have since amicably settled the matter and are no
longer interested in pursuing the same.
9. 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
06.04.2026 is filed in Court today, which is taken on record.
10. The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by both
the parties is extracted hereunder:
“xxx xxx xxx
5. That, in the meantime with the help of village gentries
and well wishers matter was compromise by both the
parties and they are living peacefully. After
compromising both parties are executed joint affidavit
before the Notary Public, Khaira, Balasore on dtd.
31.03.2026.
11. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall
circumstances and since the parties have amicably settled
the matter amongst themselves and are no longer
Page 3 of 9
interested in supporting the prosecution; no useful purpose
will be served in continuing with these proceedings.
12. Consequently and looking to the decision of the
Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab1, which
has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that
even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on
the basis of a settlement between the offender and the
victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as
under:
“58…….However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil
flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile,
commercial, financial, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or
the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to
the victim and the offender and the victim have
settled all disputes between them amicably,
irrespective of the fact that such offences have not
been made compoundable, the High Court may
within the framework of its inherent power, quash
the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or
FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such
settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the
offender being convicted and by not quashing the
criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and
ends of justice shall be defeated.”
1
(2012) 10 SCC 303
Page 4 of 9
13. Similarly, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
& Anr.2 where the Supreme Court held as follows:-
“31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and
lay down the following principles by which the High
Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to
the settlement between the parties and exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the
criminal proceedings:
(i) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is
to be distinguished from the power which lies in the
Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the
High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not
compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter
between themselves. However, this power is to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.
(ii) When the parties have reached the settlement and
on that basis petition for quashing the criminal
proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases
would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an
opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
(iii) Such a power is not be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences
of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
2
Decided in Criminal Appeal No.686 of 2014 on 27.03.2014
Page 5 of 9
dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and
have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences
alleged to have been committed under special statute like
the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by Public Servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.
(iv) On the other, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship
or family disputes should be quashed when the parties
have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
(v) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal cases.
(vi) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is
to be generally treated as crime against the society and
not against the individual alone. However, the High
Court would not rest its decision merely because there
is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge
is framed under this provision. It would be open to the
High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section
307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High
Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether
Page 6 of 9
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the
body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in
respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally
be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie
analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether
there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances
of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it
can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would
be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be
swayed by the fact that the settlement between the
parties is going to result in harmony between them
which may improve their future relationship.
(vii) While deciding whether to exercise its power
under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of
settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the
settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged
commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in
accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason
that at this stage the investigation is still on and even
the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases
where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to
start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High
Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers
favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the
circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other
hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete
or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at
Page 7 of 9
the stage of argument, normally the High Court should
refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of
the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a
position to decide the case finally on merits and to come
a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307
IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where
the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and
the matter is at the appellate stage before the High
Court, mere compromise between the parties would not
be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of
the offender who has already been convicted by the trial
court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and
conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and,
therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found
guilty of such a crime.”
14. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is the
considered opinion that these matters deserve to be given a
quietus at this stage itself since the parties concerned have
settled the matter amongst themselves and are no longer
inclined to support the prosecution in respect of their
respective FIRs, thereby diminishing the chances of its
success.
15. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed. F.I.R.
vide Simulia P.S. Case No.233 of 2020 registered under
Sections 294/307/323/325/341/506/34 of the I.P.C.
corresponding to C.T. Case No.710 of 2020 & F.I.R. vide
Simulia P.S. Case No.232 of 2020 registered under Sections
294/323/325/341/506/34 of the I.P.C. corresponding to C.T.
Page 8 of 9
Case No.709 of 2020 pending before the learned J.M.F.C.,
Soro and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby
quashed.
16. Accordingly, both the CRLMCs stand disposed of.
17. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
18. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned
trial Court for information.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sipun
Page 9 of 9
