Hemanta Kumar Panigrahi Vs State of Odisha

2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the allegation of committing fraud is made, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him vide C.T. Case No.214 of 2026 arising out of Saheed Nagar P.S. Case No.92 of 2026 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C-III, Bhubaneswar.

¶14

3. Heard.

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

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. They also submit that due to some misunderstanding the above noted F.I.R was lodged against the present

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-May-2026 17:34:45

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

Petitioner. A joint affidavit has been filed to that effect. They, accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC.

¶20

5. The relevant portions of the said joint affidavit filed by both the parties are extracted hereunder:-

¶21

“ xxx xxx xxx

¶22

1. We, 1) Hemanta Kumar Panigrahi, aged about 40 years, Son of Late Anirudha Panigrahi, resident of AtMaschholo, P.SRamachandrapur, District-Keonjhar, at present residing At-Hanspal, Puri Kenal Road, Plot No.33, Radhamadhab Nagar, P.SMancheswar, Bhubaneswar, District-Khordha and 2) Nagen Kumar Behera, aged about 30 years, Son of Raj Kishore Behera, At-Nuapada, P.O-Chandolo, P.S.-Kendrapara Sadar, District- Kendrapara, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-

¶23

2. That we are the petitioner and informant (Opp.Party No.2) in the above mentioned case.

¶24

3. That the Opp.party No.2/ Informant has filed a complaint/ F.I.R against the petitioner in connection with Saheed Nagar P.S. Case No.92/2026 corresponding to C.T. Case No.214 of 2026 for the offence under Sections 318(4), 351(2) & 3(5) of BNSS 2023, which is now pending before the learned J.M.F.C-III, Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda.

¶25

4. That due to the intervention of mediators, the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner given all the amount to the Opp.Party No.2/ informant.

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

5. That the Petitioner has satisfied the Opp.Party No.2 and the Opp.Party No.2 do not want to proceed the aforesaid criminal proceeding.

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-May-2026 17:34:45

¶29

Page 2 of 6

¶30

6. That the settlement is done without any fear, force or coercion.

¶31

7. That the Opp.Party No.2 has no objection, if the F.I.R is quashed.

¶32

xxx xxx xxx ”

¶33

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.

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

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

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-May-2026 17:34:45

¶37

Page 3 of 6

¶38

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.

¶39

8. In light of the aforesaid, and applying the same to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of the impugned criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and would not subserve the ends of justice.

¶40

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:

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

“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

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant 1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-May-2026 17:34:45

¶44

Page 4 of 6

¶45

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.”

¶46

10. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the

¶47

case of Manoj Sharma v. State² wherein the Court held as follows:

¶48

“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.”

¶49

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.

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Saheed Nagar P.S.

¶52

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal AssistantReason: Authentication 2 (2008) 16 SCC 1 Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-May-2026 17:34:45

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

Ayaskanta

¶55

Case No.92 of 2026 is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., C.T Case No.214 of 2026 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C-III, Bhubaneswar also stands quashed. 13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶56

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶57

Signature Not Verified

¶58

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-May-2026 17:34:45

¶59

Page 6 of 6

Hemanta Kumar Panigrahi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemanta Kumar Panigrahi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Bharat Kishan Vs State of Odisha

Mukesh Hansa Vs State of Odisha

Kumaresh Barik Vs Shashadhar Panda

Rajot Patra@Rajat Kumar Patra Vs State of Odisha

Sachidananda Bhoi Vs State of Odisha