Allowed¶8

Chumki Naik@Madhabi Naik v. State of Odisha

Criminal Miscellaneous – quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings

Orissa HC10 Jul 2026CRLMC/1462/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRLMC No. 1462 of 2026; Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi; quashing of FIR; Boudh P.S. Case No.66 of 2024; C.T. Case No.72 of 2024; JMFC Boudh; mediation dated 10.04.2026; amicable settlement; Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure; inherent powers; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi v. State of Orissa 2014 (II) OLR 29; Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka v. State of Orissa 2014 (II) OLR 452; abuse of process; ends of justice; sterile prosecutions.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding vide Boudh P.S. Case No.66 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No.72 of 2024, pending before the learned JMFC, Boudh; CRLMC disposed of accordingly. ¶8

Chumki Naik@Madhabi Naik Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding in Boudh P.S. Case No.66 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No.72 of 2024, pending before the learned JMFC, Boudh, ought to be quashed in exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction in view of the amicable settlement between the parties.

¶2

Court's answer

The underlying dispute between the parties has been amicably and voluntarily resolved through mediation, leaving no subsisting grievance that would justify continuation of the criminal prosecution.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The present case squarely falls within the category of matters where continuance of the criminal proceeding would serve no meaningful juridical purpose and would only perpetuate avoidable litigation between parties who have already resolved their differences.

¶7

Key takeaways

In appropriate cases the inherent power of the High Court operates as a constitutional safety valve so that the criminal process does not degenerate into a mechanical continuation of proceedings devoid of meaningful prosecutorial purpose.obiter¶5
The application is allowed and the criminal proceeding against Opposite Party No.2 vide Boudh P.S. Case No.66 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No.72 of 2024, pending before the learned JMFC, Boudh, is quashed.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous - quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings - amicable settlement between parties through successful mediation dated 10.04.2026 - exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where dispute is essentially private/personal and settlement genuine and voluntary - continuation of prosecution would serve no meaningful juridical purpose and amount to abuse of process - following Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and prior Orissa High Court decisions (2014 (II) OLR 29; 2014 (II) OLR 452) - CRLMC allowed; criminal proceeding in Boudh P.S. Case No.66 of 2024 / C.T. Case No.72 of 2024 (JMFC, Boudh) quashed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 1462 of 2026

¶2

Chumki Naik @ Madhabi ..... Petitioner (s) Naik Ms. Sasmita Nanda, Advocate -Versus-

¶3

…. State of Odisha & Ors. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA Ms. Nibedita Barik, Advocate for O.P No.2

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER 10.07.2026

Order No.

02.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶10

2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the FIR as well as entire proceeding vide Boudh P.S. Case No.66 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No.72 of 2024 pending in the court of learned JMFC, Boudh against the Opposite Party No.2.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for both the parties submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties through Mediation vide dated 10.04.2026, wherein the mediation became successful. The contents of the mediation report are extracted hereinbelow: -

¶12

“xxx xxx xxx After discussion both the parties are agreed to settle the matter amicably before

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-Jul-2026 17:19:26

¶15

the Mediation Center and do want to proceed in this case any further.

¶16

Hence, the mediation is successful between the parties”.

¶17

4. Having bestowed a thoughtful consideration upon the mediation report jointly filed by the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2/Complainant, this Court finds that the underlying dispute between the parties has been amicably and voluntarily resolved, leaving no subsisting grievance that would justify the continuation of the criminal prosecution. The jurisprudential basis for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court in such circumstances is now well-settled. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab¹ authoritatively held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may quash criminal proceedings where the dispute is essentially private or personal in nature and the parties have arrived at a genuine and voluntary settlement, provided that such exercise of power advances the ends of justice and prevents abuse of the process of the Court.

¶18

5. The said principle proceeds on the broader jurisprudential understanding that criminal law, though primarily concerned with the protection of public order and societal interests, ought

¶19

1 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-Jul-2026 17:19:26

¶22

not to be invoked as an instrument to perpetuate litigation where the foundational dispute itself has been extinguished through a bona fide settlement between the parties. In appropriate cases, therefore, the inherent power of the High Court operates as a constitutional safety valve to ensure that the criminal process does not degenerate into a mechanical continuation of proceedings devoid of any meaningful prosecutorial purpose.

¶23

6. This Court has consistently adopted the aforesaid approach in its decisions in Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four others v. State of Orissa² and four others and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and another v. State of Orissa and Another³ , wherein it has been reiterated that once the parties have amicably settled their differences and the dispute does not implicate overriding public interest, the continuance of criminal proceedings would merely amount to an unnecessary prolongation of litigation and an abuse of the process of law.

¶24

7. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid settled principles, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case squarely falls within the category of matters where the continuance of the criminal proceeding would serve no meaningful juridical purpose. Rather, it would only perpetuate

¶25

2 2014 (II) OLR 29 3 2014 (II) OLR 452 Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-Jul-2026 17:19:26

¶27

avoidable litigation between parties who have already resolved their differences. In such circumstances, the criminal process must yield to the higher objective of securing the ends of justice, for the law does not compel courts to sustain prosecutions that have become sterile, purposeless, and oppressive in their continuation.

¶28

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations, the application is allowed. Consequently, the criminal proceeding against the Opposite Party No.2 vide Boudh P.S. Case No.66 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No.72 of 2024 pending in the court of learned JMFC, Boudh is hereby quashed.

¶29

9. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶30

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶31

Gitanjali

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-Jul-2026 17:19:26

¶33

Signature Not Verified

Chumki Naik@Madhabi Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chumki Naik@Madhabi Naik 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

Banojamanjari Das Vs State of Odisha

Bhabani Sankar Baral Vs State of Odisha

Gyanaranjan Pradhan @ Jogi Vs State of Odisha

Trilochan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Krushna Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Debaki Sahoo Vs Taahasildar, Bhuban Tahasil