Orissa High Court
Swarup Routray vs State Of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite … on 5 May, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1830 of 2025
Swarup Routray .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Deepak Kumar Sahoo, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
Mr. Nalini Kanta Sahoo, Adv.
(for O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No.
05.05.2026
02.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed
for quashing the order of taking cognizance dated 17.11.2023
passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge,
Kendrapara in T.R. Case No.216 of 2022.
Apart from the above, the Petitioner has also prayed for
quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against
him connection with the above noted case.
3. Heard learned counsel for all the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Signature Not Verified
informant and the Petitioner belong to one area and very
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 20:32:35
closely associated with each other and due to some financial
transaction and misunderstanding, the informant/Opposite
Party No.2 lodged the FIR against the present Petitioner and
Page 1 of 5
in the meantime, the matter has already been settled
between the parties. The informant already received the
disputed amount and as per there understanding, the
Petitioner will pay the rest amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the
informant and the informant also have no objection for
settlement of the issue.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that
the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 have no interest to
proceed further in the case.
6. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2, on the other
hand, confirms the factum of settlement and submits that
Opposite Party No.2 does not intend to proceed further with
the case.
7. On perusal of the case record, it appears that the
Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 has filed an affidavit
dated 11.02.2026, wherein it is stated as follows:
“….
4. That , in the mean time both of us settled the
matter out of court and we have no interest to
proceed further in the above case for which we both
of us filling the above affidavit before this hon’ble
court for the appreciation of the fact and law
involve in this case for ends of justice .
5.That ,fact remains we both of us are belongs to
one aria and due to some financial crisis the
petitioner did not pay the amount in due time for
which the above case was registered and in thePage 2 of 5
meantime bad time has already been passed and the
the amount has already been paid and both of us
have no interest at all to proceed further in the
above case.
6.That, if the above case will linger for year
together then misunderstanding will lie over then
it will hamper our social relationship so keeping
eye upon our future we both of us join hand
together forgetting the past misunderstanding and
we have no interest to proceed further in this
case.”
8. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if the
proceeding is quashed in view of the settlement between the
Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2.
9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties, the contents of the affidavit filed by the
Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 and the fact that the
dispute is essentially of a financial/contractual nature which
has been amicably resolved, this Court is of the view that
continuation of the criminal proceeding would serve no
useful purpose.
10. The Supreme Court in cases such as Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab1, Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab &
Anr.2 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan &
Ors.3 has held that criminal proceedings involving
predominantly civil disputes can be quashed in exercise of
1
(2012) 10 SCC 303
2
(2014) 6 SCC 466
3
(2019) 5 SCC 688
Page 3 of 5
inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (erstwhile
Section of the 482 Cr.P.C.) when parties have settled the
matter amicably.
11.The Supreme Court in the matter of Ramawatar vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh4, has held that the Court has to be
mindful of the fact that the 1989 Act (i.e. the SC/St (PoA)
Act) has been enacted keeping in view the expressed
constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and
21 of the Constitution, with a twin fold objective of
protecting the members of these vulnerable communities; as
well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of
caste based atrocities. However, when such offence is
primarily private or civil in nature or where the alleged
offence not committed on account of the caste of the victim
or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be
an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its
powers to quash the proceedings. It further held that in such
cases, the Court ought to be even more vigilant to ensure
that the complainant-victim had entered into the
compromise on the volition of his/her freeway and not on
account of any duress.
12. In the present case, the alleged offence arises out of a
monetary dispute between Petitioner and Opposite Party
No.2 and does not involve any element of heinous crime or
4
2022 (13) SCC 625
Page 4 of 5
public interest. The matter having been settled and the
complainant having received the amount, the possibility of
conviction is remote.
13. Accordingly, in exercise of the inherent powers under
Section 528 of BNSS (erstwhile Section of the 482 Cr.P.C.),
this Court deems it fit and proper to quash the criminal
proceeding initiated against the Petitioner in connection
with T.R. Case No.216 of 2022, pending before the learned
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kendrapara.
14. The CRLMC stands allowed and disposed of.
15. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
16. A copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial
Court for information.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sipun
Page 5 of 5
[ad_1]
Source link
