Aswini Kumar Dash @ v. Mr. Raj Bhushan Dash, ASC

ORDER 07.07.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioners against whom the allegation of assaulting the informant so also the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 is made, have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them vide C.T. Case No.17 of 2026 arising out of Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.163/2026 pending before the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, S.C/S.T, Jagatsinghpur.

3. Heard.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 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. A joint affidavit to that effect has also been filed. They, accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC.

5. The relevant portions of the said joint affidavit are extracted hereunder:- “xxx 1. That, the Deponent No.1 is the Petitioner No.1, Deponent No.2 is the Petitioner No.2, Deponent No.3 is the Petitioner No.3, Deponent No.4 is the Petitioner No.4, Deponent No.5 is the Petitioner No.5, Deponent No.6 is the Petitioner No.6, Deponent No.7 is the Petitioner No.7, Deponent No.8 is the Petitioner No.8 and the Deponent No.9 is the Opposite Party No.2, Deponent No.10 is the Opposite Party No.3 and the Deponent No.11 is the Opposite Party No.11 in the aforesaid case and are competent to swear this affidavit. Judge Judge-cum-Spl.

2. That, the Opposite Party No.2 in the present CRLMC petition, who being the informant had lodged an FIR which was registered as Jagatsinghpur PS Case No.163/2026, pending before Ld. Dist. & Sessions SC/ST, Jagatsinghpur for alleged commission of offences u/s.-109(1), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 296, 303(2), 324(3) of BNS, 2023 r/w section 3(1)fi, 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act, 1989. In the said F.I.R the Informant/ Opp. Party No.2 had alleged that, the present Petitioners had abused and assaulted him along with Opp.Party No.3 & 4 and took away some amount of cash and broke furniture of their Property. However, in the meanwhile due to the intervention of their well wishers the Opp.Party No.2 (Informant), Opp.Party No.3(victim), Opp.party No.4 (victim) & the Petitioner No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 have amicably settled the dispute among themselves i.e. between the Opp.Parties & the Petitioners. Hence, the Opp.Party No.2, 3 & 4 as Deponent No.9, 10 & 11 are competent to swear this affidavit in accordance with the compromise arrived between them i.e. the Petitioners and the informant & victims.

3. That, all the parties hereby agreed that this Joint Affidavit of Mutual Settlement is irrevocable and unquestionable and undertake that, this Joint Affidavit of Mutual Settlement would inter alia be legal, valid, binding and enforceable and executable in all manners and none of the parties shall be at liberty to take advantage of any technical language or lacuna if any, if the same are not explained herein before.

4. That, this Joint Affidavit of Mutual Settlement has been signed by the parties with their consent and free will without any pressure, force, coercion or undue influence from any side.

5. That, the affidavit may be made part of the record. 6. 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 Nos.2 to 4 have joined the Petitioners in filing a sworn affidavit and have categorically stated that they do 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 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 1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 2 (2008) 16 SCC 1 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 Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.163/2026 is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., C.T. Case No.17 of 2026 pending before the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST, Jagatsinghpur also stands quashed.

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