The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:15:34 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.590 of 2023 Priti Jain and Others …. Petitioners Mr. Pravash Ch. Jena, Advocate -versus- State of Odishaand another …. Opp. Parties Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, Addl. P. P. For O.P. No.1 Mr. Sidharth Shankar Padhy, Advocate For O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 19.09.2025 08. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2. This application has been filed by the Petitioners to set aside the entire criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No.1671 of 2017 arising out of Badagada P.S. Case No.92 of 2017 pending in the court the leaned SDJM, Bhubaneswar. 3. The prosecution alleges that on 18.04.2017, Narendra Kumar Jain filed a complaint (Case No. 1671/2017) before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, against the present Petitioners and others. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:15:34 complainant, a retired Executive Director of NALCO, entered into an agreement on 12.07.2007 with M/s. Prem Shree Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Prafulla Kumar Jain, to purchase four flats in the residential project “Classic Court” and paid Rs. 60,00,000/- to the Managing Director and others associated with the company as part payment. Despite the agreement specifying that the flats would be delivered by July 2010, the accused failed to hand over possession or refund the money with interest as per Clause 7 of the agreement. The Managing Director, Prafulla Kumar Jain, passed away on 05.01.2016, after which his wife Priti Jain and other family members managed the company’s affairs but did not fulfill the terms of the agreement. Subsequently, the complainant issued legal notices demanding either possession of the flats or refund, which were ignored as the notices returned undelivered. Based on the complaint, the Magistrate, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., directed Badagada P.S. for registration of FIR. Accordingly, Badagada P.S. Case No. 92/2017 was registered for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:15:34 Later, on 27.02.2023, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the parties whereby M/s. Prem Shree Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Priti Jain, refunded Rs. 60,00,000/- to the complainant towards full and final settlement, waiving the claims against interest and the complainant agreed not to proceed with the criminal case. 4. The Opposite Party No.2-Narendra Kumar Jain appeared through virtual mode today. On being confronted with regard to the compromise entered between the Parties, he answered in affirmative and expressed no grievance in quashing the proceeding before the learned court below. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 775, has held as follows: “24. It could thus be seen that the learned 3 Judge Bench of this Court held that B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, and Manoj Sharma were correctly decided. 25. It has been held that there are certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like the offences arising out of transactions or matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or Page 3 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:15:34 in a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, the High Court would be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, even if the offences have not been made compoundable. 26. In paragraph 60, His Lordship considers the cases where the Court has refused to quash the proceedings irrespective of the settlement. The Court considers the different factual positions the cases of B.S. Joshi, Nikhil arising Merchant, and Manoj Sharma on one hand and the other cases where the Court refused to quash the proceedings. 27. In the cases of the first type, this Court found that the dispute involved had overtures of a civil dispute but in the other line of cases, the disputes were more on the criminal aspect than on a civil aspect. 28. In paragraph 61, this Court observes that, in the criminal which cases power proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised, where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the Court that the criminal cases having an reiterates overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing. The Court particularly refers to the offences arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like the offences arising out of transactions or matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. The Court finds that in such to quash such Page 4 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:15:34 cases, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 29. Another 3 Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Lal Jain and others (supra), following Gian Singh1 (supra) observed thus: “13. In the present case, as already seen, the offence with which the respondent accused had been charged are under Sections 120- B/420 of the Penal Code. The civil liability of the respondents to pay the amount to the Bank has already been settled amicably. The terms of such settlement have been extracted above (see para 3). No subsisting grievance of the Bank in this regard has been brought to the notice of the Court. While the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable the offence under Section 120-B IPC is not. To the latter offence the ratio laid down in B.S. Joshi [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848 : AIR 2003 SC 1386] and Nikhil Merchant [(2008) 9 SCC 677 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858] would apply the given case observation would so justify. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] (para 61) will not be attracted in the present case in view of the offences alleged i.e. under Sections 420/120-B IPC. facts of the if 1 Larger Bench decision Page 5 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:15:34 14. In the present case, having regard to the fact that the liability to make good the monetary loss suffered by the Bank had been mutually settled between the parties and the accused had accepted the liability in this regard, the High Court had thought it fit to invoke its power under Section 482 CrPC. We do not see how such exercise of power can be faulted or held to be erroneous. Section 482 of the Code inheres in the High Court the power to make such order as may be considered necessary to, inter alia, prevent the abuse of the process 27 of law or to serve the ends of justice. While it will be wholly unnecessary to revert or refer to the settled position in law with regard to the contours of the power available under Section 482 CrPC it must be remembered that continuance of a to likely criminal proceeding which become oppressive or may partake the character of a lame prosecution would be good ground to invoke the extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC.” is 30. Subsequently, a 2 Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others (supra), after considering the earlier pronouncements of this Court, culled out the position thus: “29. 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 the refusing proceedings or settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: to accept Page 6 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:15:34 29.1. 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 28 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. 29.2. 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. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by that public servants while working capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. in Page 7 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:15:34 relationship or 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial 29 family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. 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. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are 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 such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect the victim can of generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court injuries suffered by Page 8 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:15:34 the and that quash the fact 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 criminal proceedings whereas in the latter 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 settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. 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 is still under the matter investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. 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 its powers benevolence favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned the above. On prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising the other hand, where exercising in It Page 9 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:15:34 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 to 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.” that 31. It could thus be seen that this Court reiterates the criminal cases having the position overwhelmingly civil predominantly and those arising out of character, particularly commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 32. Though in the said case, the High Court had refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings wherein a serious offence under Section 307 IPC was involved, this Court after taking into consideration various 32 factors including that the elders of the village, including the Sarpanch, had intervened in the matter and the parties had not only buried their hatchet but had decided to live peacefully in the the criminal future, quashed and set aside proceedings under Section 307 IPC. Page 10 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:15:34 33. The aforesaid view has consistently been followed by this Court in various cases including Gold Quest International Private Limited (supra) and Sadhu Ram Singla and others (supra). 34. The facts in the present case are similar to the facts in the case of Sadhu Ram Singla and others (supra) wherein a dispute between the borrower and the Bank was settled. In the present case also, undisputedly, the FIR and the chargesheet are pertaining to the dispute concerning the loan transaction availed by the accused persons on one hand and the Bank on the other hand. Admittedly, the Bank and the accused persons have settled the matter. Apart from the earlier payment received by the Bank either through Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) or sale of the mortgaged properties, the borrowers have paid an amount of Rs.3,80,00,000/- under OTS. After receipt of the amount under OTS, the Bank had also decided to close the loan account. The dispute involved predominantly had overtures of a civil dispute. 35. Apart from that, it is further to be noted that in view of the settlement between the parties in the proceedings before the DRT, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. In our view, continuation of the criminal proceedings would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice. 36. In any case, as discussed hereinabove, both the appellants have been arraigned as wives of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2. The specific role that was attributed in the chargesheet was pertaining to Accused No.1. 37. In the result, we find that this was a fit case wherein the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quash the criminal proceedings. Page 11 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:15:34 38. We are therefore inclined to allow the present appeal.” 6. From the discussions as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to various contingencies where the Court can invoke jurisdiction U/s 482 Cr.P.C it is no more res integra and that too the offence the Petitioners are involved herein being compoundable in nature this Court has no hesitation to hold that upon the settlement reached between the parties and the money transaction involved in the dispute having reached its finality there remains nothing for adjudication. Hence, the continuance of further proceeding would be a futile effort only resulting abuse of process of law and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. In the result, the CRLMC is allowed. As a necessary corollary the further proceeding in C.T. Case No.1671 of 2017 stands quashed. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) AKPradhan Page 12 of 12