Orissa High Court
CRLMC/4723/2025 of RAJESH@RAKESH PATRA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 8 September 2026
of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4723 of 2025 CNR No. ODHC010812612025 Rajesh @ Rakesh Patra ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Mr. Mahes Das -versus- State of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA for O.P. No.1 M/s.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4723 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010812612025
Rajesh @ Rakesh Patra
.....
Petitioner
Represented by Adv. –
Mr. Mahes Das
-versus-
State of Odisha and another
.....
Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. –
Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA for
O.P. No.1
M/s. Bibhuti Bhusan
Rout, S.Nayak
(For O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
08.09.2026 Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party No.1. Perused the application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding on the ground of compromise.
3. On perusal of the record, it appears that the present application has been filed at the instance of the Accused in Binjharpur P.S. Case No.69 of 2024, which corresponds to C.T.
Case No.322 of 2024, now pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur.
4. In the meantime, after conclusion of the investigation, a final charge sheet has been filed alleging commission of offence under Section 279 & 304-A of the I.P.C. When the matter is pending for trial, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended before this Court that the parties have agreed to settle the dispute amicably and that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. He further contended that due to negligent driving the deceased has died and the Petitioner has been unnecessarily dragged in the present case and that he has no fault in such accident and consequently death of the deceased.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2- Informant supported the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and submitted that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 referring to the affidavit filed by the Informant, submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged due to a misunderstanding between the Petitioner and the Informant. Such affidavit further reveals that the matter has been settled on compromise with the intervention of the village gentries and well-wishers of both sides and that the Opposite Party No.2- Informant is no more interested to proceed further in the present criminal case and that he will have no objection in the event this Court quashes the entire criminal proceeding.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, seriously objected to the quashing of the criminal proceeding on the ground of compromise. He further submitted that taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the allegation and the fact that the person has died in road accident and that the Petitioner is facing a charge under a serious section, i.e., under Section 304-A of the I.P.C., the criminal case should not be permitted to be quashed on the basis of a compromise.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the contentions as well as a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case and taking note of the subsequent development that had taken place, this Court is of the considered view that a case of this nature could not have been compromised and that on the basis of such compromise, this Court cannot bring an end to the criminal proceeding in exercise of its inherent power. The position of law with regard to the quashing of the criminal proceeding on compromise is very clear in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab &Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.
8. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere in exercise of its inherent power. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court directs the trial court to expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. Further, the trial court shall examine the Informant as
the first witness from the side of the prosecution on production of this order.
9. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands disposed of with the direction indicated hereinabove.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 12-Sep-2026 13:44:30 Signature Not Verified