Orissa High Court
Urmila Naik vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 10 July, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 1527 of 2026
Urmila Naik ..... Petitioner (s)
Ms. Sasmita Nanda, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA
Ms. Sunanda Biswal, Advocate
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
10.07.2026
Order No.
03.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash
the FIR as well as entire proceeding vide Harabhanga P.S.Case
No.60 of 2022 corresponding to C.T.Case no. 159 of 2022 pending
in the court of learned JMFC, Harbhanga against the Opposite
Party Nos.2 & 3.
3. Learned counsel for both the parties submits that the matter
has been amicably settled between the parties through Mediation
vide dated 31.03.2026, wherein the mediation became successful.
The contents of the mediation report are extracted hereinbelow: –
“The complainant namely Urmila Nail, W/o-
Aruna Naik, W/o- Aruna Naik, Vil- Nuapada,
PO- Snkulei, PS-Harabhanga is present. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 13-Jul-2026 17:19:26
accused person namely Aruna Naik S/o- Lt.
Satrughana Naik of village Nuapada PO-
Sankulei, PS- Harabhanga Dist- Boudh is present
before the Mediation Centre, Boudh both the
parties amicably settled their dispute with healthy
atmosphere in the Mediation Centre before the
Mediator and they do not want to proceed further
in this case and the mediation is successful”.
4. Having bestowed a thoughtful consideration upon the
mediation report jointly filed by the Petitioner and the Opposite
Party No.2/Complainant, this Court finds that the underlying
dispute between the parties has been amicably and voluntarily
resolved, leaving no subsisting grievance that would justify the
continuation of the criminal prosecution. The jurisprudential
basis for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court in such
circumstances is now well-settled. The Supreme Court in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab1 authoritatively held that the High
Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, may quash criminal proceedings
where the dispute is essentially private or personal in nature and
the parties have arrived at a genuine and voluntary settlement,
11
(2012) 10 SCC 303
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 13-Jul-2026 17:19:26
provided that such exercise of power advances the ends of justice
and prevents abuse of the process of the Court.
5. The said principle proceeds on the broader jurisprudential
understanding that criminal law, though primarily concerned
with the protection of public order and societal interests, ought
not to be invoked as an instrument to perpetuate litigation where
the foundational dispute itself has been extinguished through a
bona fide settlement between the parties. In appropriate cases,
therefore, the inherent power of the High Court operates as a
constitutional safety valve to ensure that the criminal process
does not degenerate into a mechanical continuation of
proceedings devoid of any meaningful prosecutorial purpose.
6. This Court has consistently adopted the aforesaid approach in
its decisions in Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four others v. State
of Orissa2 and four others and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka
and another v. State of Orissa and Another3 , wherein it has been
reiterated that once the parties have amicably settled their
differences and the dispute does not implicate overriding public
interest, the continuance of criminal proceedings would merely
amount to an unnecessary prolongation of litigation and an abuse
of the process of law.
2
2014 (II) OLR 29
3 2014 (II) OLR 452
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 13-Jul-2026 17:19:26
7. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid settled principles,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case
squarely falls within the category of matters where the
continuance of the criminal proceeding would serve no
meaningful juridical purpose. Rather, it would only perpetuate
avoidable litigation between parties who have already resolved
their differences. In such circumstances, the criminal process
must yield to the higher objective of securing the ends of justice,
for the law does not compel courts to sustain prosecutions that
have become sterile, purposeless, and oppressive in their
continuation.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations, the
application is allowed. Consequently, the criminal proceeding
against the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 vide Harabhanga P.S.Case
No.60 of 2022 corresponding to C.T. Case No.159 of 2022 pending
in the court of learned JMFC, Harbhanga is hereby quashed.
9. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 13-Jul-2026 17:19:26
