Sangram Keshari v. State of Odisha & Anr.

Opposite Party(s) Mr. Debashish Nayak, AGA HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 07. ORDER 14.07.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioners against whom the allegation of giving threatening to the Opposite Party No.2 is made, have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them vide G.R. Case No.1275/2022 arising out of Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No.185 of 2022 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Berhampur.

3. Heard.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioners 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. They also submit that due to some misunderstanding the above noted F.I.R was lodged against the present Petitioners. An affidavit to that effect at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2/informant has been filed. They, accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC.

5. The relevant portions of the said affidavit are extracted hereunder:- “xxx 1. I, Shri Dr. Ramesh Chandra Barada @ B. Ramesh Chandra, aged about 53 years, S/o. Late B.V Raju residing at Harsha Vihar, Berhampur sadar, District Ganjam, do hereby solemnly affirm and state:

2. That I am the informant in the aforesaid case and I am acquainted with the entire facts stated in the aforesaid case which relates to commercial dispute. 3. That during pendency of the aforesaid case, the dispute has been compromised with amicable settlement and for which I being the informant do not want to further proceed with this case and I shall have no objection if this matter is quashed in favour of the accused petitioner in the ends of justice.

4. I swear this affidavit filed before this Hon’ble Court showing our decision not go further with this case. 5. That the facts stated about are true and to the best of my knowledge. xxx”

6. This Court has considered the affidavit filed by the informant 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 Petitioners filing a sworn affidavit and has categorically stated that he does not wish to proceed further with the criminal case and that the Petitioners are 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 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 1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 2 (2008) 16 SCC 1 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 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 Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No.185 of 2022 is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., G.R. Case No.1275/2026 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Berhampur also stands quashed.

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