Khirod Prasad Negi Vs State of Orissa — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Khirod Prasad Negi Vs State of Orissa — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No.32 of 2026 (Sessions) arising out of Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.160 of 2024; the CRLMC is disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding against the Petitioners in Bawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.160 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No.32 of 2026 (Sessions), pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna, should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties.

Court's answer

Considering the contents of the joint affidavit recording the amicable settlement, and following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and the two reported cases of this Court in Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceeding to continue, as it would only lead to abuse of the process of law.

Ratio / Principle

The application (CRLMC) is allowed.

Key takeaways

The criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No.32 of 2026 (Sessions), arising out of Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.160 of 2024, pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna, is hereby quashed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure — Quashing of criminal proceedings on amicable settlement between parties — Petitioners and Informant-Opposite Party No.2 filed joint affidavit dated 06.07.2026 recording amicable settlement effected with the interference of local people, with the Informant stating he did not wish to proceed with the case — Considering the joint affidavit and following the ratio in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and the Orissa High Court decisions in Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four others v. State of Orissa and four others, 2014 (II) OLR 29, and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and another v. State of Orissa and Another, 2014 (II) OLR 452, the High Court held that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceeding (Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.160 of 2024 / C.T. Case No.32 of 2026 (Sessions), pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna) to continue, as it would only lead to abuse of the process of law — Application allowed; criminal proceeding quashed; CRLMC disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No. 2006 of 2026

Khirod Prasad Negi & Anr. ..…... Petitioner (s) Mr. Jnyananda Panda, Adv.

-Versus-

……. State of Odisha & anr. Opposite Party (s) Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC Mr. Akash Kumar Pattajoshi, Adv. (for O.P.2)

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER

07.07.2026

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

The Petitioners have filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against them in Bawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.160 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No.32 of 2026 (Sessions), pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Jul-2026 11:09:23

Learned counsel for both the parties submits that in the meantime, the matter has amicably been settled between the parties. In this regard, a joint affidavit dated 06.07.2026 has been filed by both the parties.

Page 1 of 3

The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by both the parties is extracted hereunder:

“xxx xxx xxx

“3. That with the interference of local people, we have settled out dispute amicably. Now the matter has been amicably resolved among us as per understanding and there are no differences among us. We (the Petitioners and the Informant-Opp. Party No.2) are now living peacefully in society.

4. That in the above circumstances, the Informant-Opp. Party No.2 don’t want proceed with the present case against the Petitioners.

5. That in view of the above facts and circumstances we are swearing this affidavit and declaring to the effect that if our amicable settlement shall be considered and CRLMC be allowed, we have no objection and we shall not be prejudiced at all in any manner. ”

Considering the contents of the joint affidavit filed by both the parties and following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another¹ , and two other reported cases of this Court in Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four others v. State of Orissa and four others² , and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and another –vrs.- State of Orissa and Another³ , wherein this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in allowing such proceedings to continue the criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case as it will only lead to abuse the process of law.

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed 2 2014 (II) OLR 29 Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: AuthenticationLocation: OHC 3 2014 (II) OL R 452 Date: 09-Jul-2026 11:09:23

Page 2 of 3

In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioners in C.T. Case No.32 of 2026(Sessions) arising out of Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.160 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna is hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.

1.2.

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

Murmu

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Jul-2026 11:09:23

Page 3 of 3