Allowed¶45

Aju Sendria v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Jul 2026CRLMC/959/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceeding on amicable settlement; Section 482 Cr.P.C. inherent power distinguished from Section 320 Cr.P.C. compounding; non-compoundable offence; joint affidavit dated 23.04.2026; G.R Case No. 1014 of 2025; Padampur P.S Case No.277 of 2025; SDJM Padampur; impleadment of complainant (I.A. No.943 of 2026); Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika AIR 2012 SC 499; Manoj Sharma v. State (2008) 16 SCC 1; abuse of process of Court; ends of justice; remote possibility of conviction.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the criminal proceeding in G.R Case No. 1014 of 2025 arising out of Padampur P.S Case No.277 of 2025 pending before the learned SDJM, Padampur; the CRLMC disposed of. ¶45

Aju Sendria Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the criminal proceeding in G.R Case No. 1014 of 2025 arising out of Padampur P.S Case No.277 of 2025 pending before the learned SDJM, Padampur; the CRLMC disposed of.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner in G.R Case No. 1014 of 2025 arising out of Padampur P.S Case No.277 of 2025 should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties recorded in a joint affidavit.

¶21

Court's answer

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 prevent abuse of process; it is not to be exercised mechanically merely because the parties have settled, and requires examination of the nature and gravity of allegations, genesis of the dispute, stage of proceedings, and whether conviction has become remote.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The Court is not proceeding on the basis of a bare compromise alone but on the subsequent sworn stand of the complainant himself (Opposite Party No.2), which substantially erodes the factual substratum of the prosecution.

¶31

Key takeaways

Having regard to the materials on record, the stage of the case and the unequivocal position taken by the complainant, the possibility of a successful conviction is remote and bleak.ratio¶32
Continuance of the impugned criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court, would serve no useful purpose, and would not subserve the ends of justice.ratio¶34
The application is allowed and the criminal proceeding in G.R Case No. 1014 of 2025 arising out of Padampur P.S Case No.277 of 2025 pending before the learned SDJM, Padampur is quashed; the CRLMC is disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.), order dated 02.05.2026 in CRLMC No. 959 of 2026: Allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceeding in G.R Case No. 1014 of 2025 arising out of Padampur P.S Case No.277 of 2025 pending before the learned SDJM, Padampur, after the petitioner and complainant (impleaded as Opposite Party No.2 via I.A. No.943 of 2026) filed a joint affidavit dated 23.04.2026 recording an amicable settlement. The Court held that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is distinct from compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C., is not exercised mechanically on a mere settlement, and may be invoked where, given the complainant's sworn stand, the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation would be futile or oppressive. Relying on Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499, and Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1, it found continuation would amount to abuse of the process of Court and quashed the proceeding.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 959 of 2026

¶2

Aju Sendria & Anr. ..…... Petitioner(s) Ms. Agnisikha Ray, Adv.

¶3

-Versus-

¶4

…. State of Odisha & Anr. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC Mrs. Tapaswini Sinha, Adv. (for O.P.2)

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER

02.05.2026

Order No.

I.A. No.943 of 2026

¶12

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

This is an application to implead the complainant as Opposite Party No.2 to the CRLMC.

¶15

Considering the submissions and averments made in this I.A., this Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid party is a necessary

¶16

party for proper and effective adjudication of the case. Hence, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed prayer made in this I.A is allowed.

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC 5. Con sol idated copy of the cause title be filed within a week hence. Date: 03-Jul-2026 17:26:29

¶18

The I.A is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

CRLMC NO.959 OF 2026

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against him in G.R Case No. 1014 of 2025 arising out Padampur P.S Case No.277 of 2025 pending before the learned SDJM, Padampur.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that, in the interregnum, the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. In support thereof, a joint affidavit dated 23.04.2026 has been filed by the parties.

¶23

10.The relevant portion of the joint affidavit filed by both the parties is extracted hereunder:

¶24

“xxx xxx xxx

¶25

“2. That, in the meantime due to intervention of the local gentries and well-wishers as well as our family members, the matter has already been settled between us (i.e. Petitioner and Complainant/ Opp. Party No. 2). The complainant/ Opp. Party N0.2 don't want to proceed the ease against the present petitioner. Hence, this Hon'ble Court may quash the proceeding in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Jul-2026 17:26:29

¶28

3. That, matter has settled among us without fear and favour and also neither any compulsion nor any pressure from any comer of the petitioner. So, this Hon'ble Court may quash the proceeding in connection with aforesaid ease.”

¶29

11.This Court has considered the joint affidavit filed by both parties and is conscious of the settled legal position that the inherent

¶30

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.

¶31

12.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.

¶32

Signature Not Verified Having regard to the materials on record, the stage of the case, Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication and the unequivocal position taken by the complainant, this Location: OHC Date: 03-Jul-2026 17:26:29 Court is satisfied that the possibility of a successful conviction is remote and bleak, and that continuation of the impugned

¶33

proceeding would serve no useful purpose but would instead amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶34

13.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.

¶35

14.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:

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Jul-2026 17:26:29

¶38

“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.”

¶39

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

¶40

Sharma v. State² wherein the Court held as follows:

¶41

1 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499

¶42

2 (2008) 16 SCC 1

¶43

¶44

16.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.

¶45

17.In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioner in connection with G.R Case No. 1014 of 2025 arising out of Padampur P.S Case No.277 of 2025 pending before the learned SDJM, Padampur is hereby quashed.

¶46

Signature Not Verified18.Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of. Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Jul-2026 17:26:29

¶47

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶48

Gitanjali

Aju Sendria v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aju Sendria 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

Krushna Chandra Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Siva Prasad Rath Vs Superintendent of Police,Ganjam

Dasarathi Dash Vs State of Odisha

Bikram Bag Vs State of Odisha

Kishore Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Pravat Ranjan Biswal Vs Republic of India