Allowed¶50

N.Rajesh v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Mar 2026CRLMC/343/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: CRLMC No.343 of 2026; N. Rajesh & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi; quashing of FIR/criminal proceeding; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 320 Cr.P.C.; compounding of offences; matrimonial dispute; husband and in-laws; joint affidavit; amicable settlement; mutual divorce; section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act; C.P. No.721/2025 Family Court Cuttack; G.R. Case No.666/2023; S.D.J.M. Cuttack; permanent alimony Rs.5,00,000/- out of Rs.7,00,000/-; abuse of process of Court; ends of justice; Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika AIR 2012 SC 499; Manoj Sharma v. State (2008) 16 SCC 1; proceeding quashed; CRLMC disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; entire criminal proceeding vide G.R. Case No.666 of 2023 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Cuttack quashed; CRLMC disposed of.

N.Rajesh Vs State of Odisha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed; entire criminal proceeding vide G.R. Case No.666 of 2023 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Cuttack quashed; CRLMC disposed of.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioners vide G.R. Case No.666/2023 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack should be quashed. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Allowing the prosecution to continue would be futile and would amount to an abuse of the process of law; accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioners vide G.R. Case No.666 of 2023 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Cuttack stands quashed, and the CRLMC is disposed of.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

The Court is not proceeding on a bare compromise alone but on the subsequent stand of the complainant herself, which substantially erodes the factual substratum of the prosecution; the possibility of a successful conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the impugned proceeding would serve no useful purpose but would amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶34

Key takeaways

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 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, the real genesis of the dispute, the stage of the proceeding, and whether conviction has become remote.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Quashing of criminal proceeding — Matrimonial dispute — Husband (Petitioner No.1) and in-laws (Petitioner Nos.2 to 4) sought quashing of entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.666/2023 pending before learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack — Parties filed joint affidavit recording amicable settlement; wife/complainant (Opposite Party No.2) categorically stated she does not wish to proceed further and that the Petitioners are not involved in the alleged occurrence — Mutual divorce petition under section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act (C.P. No.721/2025, Family Court, Cuttack) pending; part permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- out of Rs.7,00,000/- received — Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. distinct from compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C.; not to be exercised mechanically on mere settlement — Court examined gravity, genesis, stage of proceeding and remoteness of conviction — Possibility of successful conviction held remote and bleak; continuance would be abuse of process of law — Reliance on Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika (AIR 2012 SC 499) and Manoj Sharma v. State ((2008) 16 SCC 1): non-compoundability under Section 320 IPC by itself no bar to exercise of Section 482 power where no realistic chance of conviction — Entire criminal proceeding quashed; CRLMC disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.343 of 2026

¶2

N. Rajesh & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) Ms. Susmita Pattnaik, Adv. -versus-

¶3

…. State of Odisha & Anr. Opposite Party(s) Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC Mr. Sangram Mishra, Adv.

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

Order No.

02.

ORDER

25.03.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶11

2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner No.1 being the husband of the Opposite Party No.2 and the Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 being the in-laws members of the Opposite Party No.2, have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them vide G.R. Case No.666/2023 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Cuttack.

¶12

3. Heard.

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Mar-2026 17:05:34

¶15

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioners 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. A joint affidavit has been filed to that effect. They,

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

accordingly, pray for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC.

¶18

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

¶19

“ xxx xxx xxx

¶20

1. That while the fact stood thus by an amicable Settlement Between we both the spouses filed a joint petition under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, vide C.P. No.721/2025 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack praying therein for passing mutual Divorce and as per the terms of said compromise. Also I Deponent No.2 have received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- out of Rs.7,00,000/- as part paying of my permanent alimony and the matter is pending for disposal before the Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.

¶21

2. That as per the condition of the compromise we both parties have agreed to co-operate for disposal of the pending cases as reflected in the joint Divorce petition. Accordingly we both filed affidavit before this Hon’ble Court.

¶22

3. That, at the present scenario the continuance of said G.R. Case before the Court below is an unnecessary waste of time and money as we are not interest to proceed further with this case in view of the compromise effected between us.

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Mar-2026 17:05:34

¶25

4. That we have not suppressed any material facts and being in sound mind have filed divorce petition before the Judge Family Court, Cuttack.

¶26

xxx xxx xxx ”

¶27

6. This Court has considered the joint affidavit filed by both parties and is conscious of the settled legal

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

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.

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Mar-2026 17:05:34

¶32

7. In the present case, Opposite Party No.2 has joined the Petitioners in filing a sworn affidavit and has categorically stated that she does not wish to proceed further with the criminal case 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 complainant herself, 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

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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:

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Mar-2026 17:05:34

¶39

“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

¶40

1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

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

¶46

11. Tested against the aforesaid principles and the facts of

¶47

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.

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Mar-2026 17:05:34

¶50

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioners vide G.R. Case No.666 of 2023 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Cuttack stands quashed.

¶51

2 (2008) 16 SCC 1

¶52

Page 5 of 6

¶53

13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶54

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)

¶55

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: 26-Mar-2026 17:05:34

¶59

Page 6 of 6

N.Rajesh v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Rajesh 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

Udit Narayan Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of Odisha

Chinmaya Pasayat Vs Uday a Kaole, Chairman Cum M.D., Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd., Sambalpur

Subrat Kumar Prusty Vs Tapas Kumar Mishra

Ratnakar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Sushil Kumar Sahoo@Ganesh Vs State of Odisha