Sudhansu Sekhar Rayaguru Vs State of Odisha

2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioners against whom the allegation of fraud is made, have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them vide G.R. Case No.110 of 2017 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Koraput including the order of cognizance dated 05.05.2018 passed therein.

¶15

3. Heard.

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00

¶18

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 6/informants in one tone submit that due to some misunderstanding the above noted F.I.R was lodged against the present Petitioners. They also submit that both the parties are ready for amicable settlement of the

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

“ xxx xxx xxx

¶23

1. That, Petitioner was the Chief Executive, District Supply & Marketing Society, Koraput and the Opp. Party No-2 to 6 were the members of Gramahundi Thakurani Producer Group, Mathapada, Koraput and during such period because of some misunderstanding followed by miss communication occurred between the parties for such reason F.I.R was lodged by Opp. Party No-2 to 6 against the Petitioner for misappropriation of Rs.28,00,000/which was registered as Koraput P.S. Case No.23 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.110 of 2017 which is now pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M, Koraput.

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00

¶26

2. That although due to the aforesaid reason of misunderstanding the F.I.R was lodged but soon thereafter as it was found that the aforesaid money has been given by the Petitioner to several supplier for the purpose of procurement of raw materials to be used by the Society members to prepare the finished product and thereafter those suppliers have also admitted about taking of such advance money and more over in the meantime the entire amount of Rs.28,00,000/- has already been credited in the Bank Account of the Society for which no misappropriation of any amount has happened thus the Opp. Party No-

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

2 to 6 have no grievance lying against the Petitioner for which they are no more interested to proceed in this case hence this Joint Affidavit.

¶29

3. That as at present both the Petitioner and the Opp.Party No.2 to 6 are having a good relation without having any Claim over each other thus the Opp-Party No-2 to 6 are not interested to pursue with the litigation initiated by them any further and hereby declare that they will also not depose against the Petitioner in the Court of Law and have no objection if based on their such stand the present petition filed be the Petitioner be allowed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶30

xxx xxx xxx ”

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

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

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

become remote and continuation of the prosecution would amount to futility or oppression.

¶36

7. In the present case, Opposite Party Nos.2 to 6 have joined the Petitioner in filing a sworn affidavit and have categorically stated that they do not wish to proceed further with the criminal case qua the Petitioners only 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 complainants, 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.

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

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 qua the present Petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and would not subserve the ends of justice.

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

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:

¶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 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.”

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

“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

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00

¶48

1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499

¶49

2 (2008) 16 SCC 1

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

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.”

¶52

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.

¶53

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Koraput Town P.S. Case No.23 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.110 of 2017 relating to the present Petitioners only is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., G.R. Case No.110 of 2017 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Koraput including the order of cognizance dated 05.05.2018 also relating to the Petitioners only stands quashed.

¶54

13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶55

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶56

Ayaskanta

¶57

Signature Not Verified

¶58

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:44:00

¶59

Page 6 of 6

Sudhansu Sekhar Rayaguru v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhansu Sekhar Rayaguru 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

State of Orissa Vs Satyananda Badhei

Sankar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Bidyadhar Dhal Vs State of Odisha

Gourahari Sahu Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Choudhry Baldev Prasad Nanda Vs State of Odisha

Pankaj Sahu Vs State of Odisha