Bisudhananda Mahali Vs State of Odisha

2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the allegation of kidnapping the Opposite Party No.3/ victim is made, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him vide G.R. Case No.1573/2018 and S.T. Case No.33 of 2022 arising out of Kendrapara Town P.S. Case No.181 of 2018 pending before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTSC, Kendrapara.

¶12

3. Heard.

¶13

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 /informant and victim in one tone submit that both the parties are ready for amicable settlement of the dispute

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-May-2026 19:40:55

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

involved herein. They also submit that due to some misunderstanding the above noted F.I.R was lodged against the Petitioner. A joint affidavit has been filed to that effect. They, 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, the aforesaid case has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order of cognizance dated 26.02.2019 passed by the learned SDJM, Kendrapara in connection with Kendrapara Town P.S. Case No.181 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1573/2018 and S.T. Case No.33 of 2022 pending in the Court of the learned ADJ, FTSC, Kendrapara.

¶21

2. That while the matter stood thus, by interference of the local gentries and relatives of the respective parties, the dispute between us have been resolved and it was held in the discussion that due to misunderstanding in between us, the informant lodged one written complaint against the petitioner for which the FIR has been registered and above Criminal Proceeding has been initiated.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-May-2026 19:40:55

¶24

3. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the ill intention between the us have been resolved to maintain peace and harmony in our family, we do not want to proceed with the case against each other henceforth. It is also undertaken by the informant and his daughter not to proceed with S.T. Case No.33 of 2022 pending in the

¶25

Page 2 of 7

¶26

Court of the learned ADJ, FTSC, Kendrapara against the petitioner. The said criminal case has been registered in connection with Kendrapara Town P.S. Case No.181 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1573/2018 and S.T. Case No.33 of 2022 pending in the Court of the learned ADJ, FTSC, Kendrapara. Reciprocally the petitioner also will not initiate any proceeding against the informant & alleged victim in respect to the present case is concerned.

¶27

4. That we both the parties being the deponents sworn this affidavit and put our respective signatures without any coercion, influence, unforced or physical pressure but as per our sweet will and own consent, voluntarily.

¶28

5. That this dispute is amicably settled between us for the betterment of the petitioner as well as the Opp. Party No.3 in order to maintain peace and harmony in between them and our family members more particularly considering the age and bright future of the petitioner and the Opp.Party No.3. Continuation with the criminal proceedings would only disturb not only them but also peace and stability of both the families.

¶29

6. That we both the parties have also amicably resolved our differences/ disputes and arrived at a mutual understanding in such circumstances; the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process and wastage of judicial time.

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-May-2026 19:40:55

¶32

7. That this affidavit is being sworn in between the parties to get rid from the alleged disputes all times to come, hence the contentions of this affidavit may kindly be taken into

¶33

Page 3 of 7

¶34

consideration while exercising the inherent power by this Hon’ble Court for proper adjudication of this case.

¶35

xxx xxx xxx ”

¶36

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

¶37

7. In the present case, Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 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 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 complainants,

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-May-2026 19:40:55

¶40

Page 4 of 7

¶41

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 complainants, 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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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:

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶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

¶46

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa 1 A IR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 Date: 05-May-2026 19:40:55

¶47

Page 5 of 7

¶48

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.”

¶49

10. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Sharma v. State² wherein the Court held as follows:

¶50

“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.”

¶51

11. Tested against the aforesaid principles and the facts of

¶52

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 Kendrapara Town

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of OrissaDate: 05-May-2026 19:40:55 2 (2 008) 16 SCC 1

¶56

Page 6 of 7

¶57

P.S. Case No.181 of 2018 is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., G.R. Case No.1573/2018 and S.T. Case No.33 of 2022 pending before the Court learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTSC, Kendrapara also stands quashed.

¶58

13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶59

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶60

Ayaskanta

¶61

Signature Not Verified

¶62

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-May-2026 19:40:55

¶63

Page 7 of 7

Bisudhananda Mahali v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bisudhananda Mahali 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

Shrikanta Panda Vs State of Odisha

Tapu Jena Vs State of Odisha

Surya Narayan Jena Vs State of Odisha

Mangulu Patro Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Basanta Kumar Soni Vs State of Odisha