Husband sought quashing of a dowry-related FIR and trial arising from a matrimonial dispute. After execution of a Deed of Khulanama, payment of Rs.5 lakh permanent alimony and a joint affidavit by the complainant not wishing to proceed, the High Court quashed the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding as an abuse of process.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.608 of 2026
Mohammad Sonu …. Petitioner(s)
Mr. Rajendra Kumar Pradhan, Adv. -versus-
…. State of Orissa & Anr. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC Mr. Sobhana Biswal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order No. ORDER
04.
16.04.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner being the husband of the Opposite Party No.2, has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him due to a matrimonial dispute vide G.R. Case No.2761 of 2024 arising out of Rourkela Plant Site P.S. Case No.805 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M(P), Rourkela.
3. Heard.
Signature Not Verified
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2/ complainant in one tone submit that both the parties are ready for amicable settlement of the dispute involved herein. They submit that due to some matrimonial dispute the above noted F.I.R was lodged against the
Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Apr-2026 17:10:43
Page 1 of 6
Petitioner. It is also submitted that upon execution of the “Deed of Khulanama” between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner has already paid the permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) to the Opposite Party No.2. A joint affidavit has been filed to that effect. They also rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vrs. State of Punjab and another1 , B.S. Joshi and Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana and Ors.2 , Naushey Ali Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh3 and Madduri Gangaraju @ Baburao Vrs. Madduri Sunanda and Ors.4
5. The relevant portions of the said joint affidavit filed by both the parties are extracted hereunder:-
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 (2003) 25 OCR (SC) 99
3 (2025) 4 SCC 78 4 Criminal Appeal No.1802-1803 of 2013
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Apr-2026 17:10:43
Page 2 of 6
2. That in the meantime the matter has amicably settled between the parties and the deed of Khulanama has been executed by the petitioner as well as the informant and the deponent No.1 (informant) has already received the permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- from the deponent No.2 (petitioner) and after receiving the said permanent alimony the deponent No.1 (informant) has already given the acknowledgement to the petitioner.
3. That due to misunderstanding between the parties the F.I.R has been lodged by the informant and in the meanwhile the matter was amicably settled between the parties and the informant does not want to proceed with the case.
4. That the deponent No.1 has no objection if this Hon’ble Court will quash the entire proceeding pending against the petitioner/ deponent No.2 and we swear this affidavit to produce this Hon’ble Court for kind perusal and necessary orders.”
Signature Not Verified
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
Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Apr-2026 17:10:43
Page 3 of 6
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.
7. In the present case, Opposite Party No.2 has joined the Petitioner in filing a sworn affidavit and has categorically stated that she does not wish to proceed further with the criminal case and that too she has already received the permanent alimony. 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 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.
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Apr-2026 17:10:43
Page 4 of 6
proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and would not subserve the ends of justice.
9. In fact, in the case of Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika5 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:
“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.”
10. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the
case of Manoj Sharma v. State6 wherein the Court held as follows:
“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
Signature Not Verified
5 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499
6 (2008) 16 SCC 1
Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Apr-2026 17:10:43
Page 5 of 6
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.”
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.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Rourkela Plant Site P.S. Case No.805 of 2024 is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., G.R. Case No.2761 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M(P), Rourkela also stands quashed.
13. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
Judge
Ayaskanta
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Apr-2026 17:10:43
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal proceeding arising from a matrimonial dispute can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after amicable settlement and payment of permanent alimony.
Whether non-compoundability of offences bars quashing where conviction has become remote.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vrs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
B.S. Joshi and Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana and Ors.Relied on
(2003) 25 OCR (SC) 99
Naushey Ali Vrs. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on
(2025) 4 SCC 78 · Who else cites this
Madduri Gangaraju @ Baburao Vrs. Madduri Sunanda and Ors.Relied on
Criminal Appeal No.1802-1803 of 2013
Shiji @ Pappu v. RadhikaRelied on¶9
AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499 · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma v. StateRelied on¶10
(2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Mohammad Sonu
State of Orissa
Opposite Party No. 2 (complainant/wife)
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
