Allowed¶34

Chandan Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 May 2026CRLMC/283/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court quash FIR criminal proceeding on basis of settlement (MoU dated 16.01.2026) and complainant's sworn affidavit; inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. distinguished from compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C./Section 320 IPC; non-compoundable offence — quashing still permissible where no realistic chance of conviction and trial futile; abuse of process of Court; ends of justice; relies on Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika AIR 2012 SC 499 and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008) 16 SCC 1; Jakhapura P.S. Case No.134 of 2025; C.T. Case No.1480 of 2025; J.M.F.C. Jajpur Road; CRLMC No. 283 of 2026; decided 13.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the criminal proceeding in Jakhapur P.S. Case No.134 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. No.1480 of 2025, pending before the J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road; the CRLMC is disposed of. ¶34

Chandan Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the criminal proceeding in Jakhapur P.S. Case No.134 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. No.1480 of 2025, pending before the J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road; the CRLMC is disposed of.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding in Jakhapura P.S. Case No.134 of 2025 (C.T. Case No.1480 of 2025) should be quashed under the High Court's inherent power, notwithstanding that the parties have settled, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the genesis of the dispute, the stage of the proceeding and the remoteness of conviction.

¶20

Court's answer

The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is distinct from compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C.; though exercisable to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, it is not to be exercised mechanically merely because the parties have arrived at a settlement — the Court must examine the nature and gravity of the allegations among other factors.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Proceeding on the complainant's own subsequent stand (sworn affidavit disclaiming further prosecution and the Petitioner's involvement), which substantially erodes the factual substratum of the prosecution, the 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 and amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶21

Key takeaways

Continuance of the impugned criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and would not subserve the ends of justice; the application is therefore allowed and the proceeding is quashed.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.) allowed CRLMC No. 283 of 2026 and quashed the criminal proceeding in Jakhapura P.S. Case No.134 of 2025 / C.T. Case No.1480 of 2025 pending before the J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road. Following an amicable settlement recorded in an MoU dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure-5) and a sworn affidavit by Opposite Party No.2 (complainant) stating that he did not wish to proceed and that the Petitioner was not involved in the alleged occurrence, the Court found the factual substratum of the prosecution substantially eroded, the possibility of conviction remote and bleak, and continuation of the proceeding an abuse of process serving no useful purpose. Exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — expressly distinguished from compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and not to be used mechanically on a mere settlement — the Court relied on Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, AIR 2012 SC 499, and Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1, for the principle that the non-compoundability of an offence is by itself no reason to refuse quashing where trial would be an exercise in futility.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 283 of 2026

¶2

Chandan Kumar Mishra

¶3

..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Shib Shankar Mohanty, Adv.

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶6

……. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Baibaswata Panigrahi, Adv.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER

13.05.2026

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against him in Jakhapura P.S. Case No.134 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No.1480 of 2025 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that, in the interregnum, the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. In support thereof, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.01.2026/Annexure-5 has been filed by the parties.

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 16-May-2026 12:13:15

¶18

This Court has considered the MoU filed by both parties and is conscious of the settled legal position that the inherent

¶19

¶20

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.

¶21

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 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.

¶22

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 16-May-2026 12:13:15

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

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:

¶26

“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.”

¶27

Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case Manoj

¶28

Sharma v. State² wherein the Court held as follows:

¶29

“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

¶30

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 Reason: Authentication Location: OHCDate: 16-May-2026 12:13:152 (2008) 16 SC C 1

¶31

¶32

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.”

¶33

10.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.

¶34

11.In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in Jakhapur P.S. Case No.134 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. No.1480 of 2025, pending before the J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road is hereby quashed.

¶35

12.Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.

¶36

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶37

Murmu

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 16-May-2026 12:13:15

Chandan Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Kumar Mishra 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

Jaswant Singh Vs the District Magistrate, Keonjhar

Akshya Kumar Mendili Vs State of Odisha

Rabi Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Bharat Kishan Vs State of Odisha

Mukesh Hansa Vs State of Odisha

Thakur Patra Vs State of Odisha