Mithun Mahal v. Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC

ORDER 30.06.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the allegation of kidnapping the daughter of the informant is made, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him vide Balichandrapur P.S Case No.425 of 2024 corresponding to C.T. No.1993 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Chandikhole.

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. It is also submitted that in the meantime, the daughter of the informant has already married somewhere else and is leading a happy conjugal life. They also submit that due to some misunderstanding the above noted F.I.R was lodged against the Petitioner. 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:- arising against the petitioner “xxx 1. That, the second party is the complainant in the aforesaid case and the first party is accused in the same case. As the second party does not want to continue further proceeding in criminal case being dispute settled between them. Both the parties sat with their well- wishers and amicably settled the dispute between them in their free will without any coercion, do hereby solemnly affirm this joint affidavit to quash the criminal proceedings Balichandrapur P.S Case No.425 of 2024 corresponding to C.T No.1993 of 2024 for commission of offences U/s. 137(2) of BNS pending before the learned JMFC, Chandikhole. 2. That the First Party filed above mentioned case invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out Balichandrapur P.S Case No.425 of 2024 corresponding to C.T. No.1993 of 2024 for commission of offences U/s. 137(2) of BNS pending before the learned JMFC, Chandikhole on the ground of comprising and settlement of dispute between the informant and the Petitioner. 3. That it is humbly submits that second party after lodged FIR, there was amicably settlement arrive between them and they are now living peacefully. So they want to end the criminal proceeding as per their mutual settlement. 4. That it is further submitted that we have mutually settled the case among us and second party informant has no issue left against the present Petitioner to proceed aforementioned criminal case. With our sweet will and free consent having understood all these facts we filed this affidavit of compromise and/ or settlement to quash the criminal proceedings against present Petitioner. 5. That the facts stated above are true to the best of our knowledge and belief. 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 required to examine the nature and gravity of the allegations, the real genesis of the dispute, the stage of 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 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 that continuance of impugned criminal proceeding would amount to 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 1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 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 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.”

11. Tested against the aforesaid principles and the facts of the present case, this Court finds that allowing the 2 (2008) 16 SCC 1 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 Balichandrapur P.S. Case No.425 of 2024 is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., C.T. No1993 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Chandikhole also stands quashed.

13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. Ayaskanta Judge (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)