Orissa High Court
CRLMC/2677/2026 of VARUN RAO Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 31 August 2026
of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2677 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010589042026 Varun Rao ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Jogesh Chandra Jena -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Smt. S. Nayak, ASC M/S SWAGATlKA PANDA, S. PARIDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2677 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010589042026
Varun Rao
.....
Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Jogesh Chandra Jena
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
.....
Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. –
Smt. S. Nayak, ASC
M/S SWAGATlKA PANDA,
S. PARIDA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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
31.08.2026 Order No.
02.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 and learned counsel for the State. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the Accused-Petitioner in C.T. Case No.2201 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.-II, Bhubaneswar which corresponds to Infocity P.S. Case No.600 of 2024 dated 19.12.2024 and which was registered for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 126(2)/296/115(2)/ 109/303(2)/351(2)/324(4)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that in the meantime, the matter has been amicably settled between the Petitioner and the Informant. He further contended that the allegation is trivial in nature and that the same has been settled on compromise. On the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the joint compromise affidavit at Annexure-3 to the present application and submitted before this Court that since the matter has already been amicably resolved on compromise, the continuance of the further proceeding is an abuse of process of law. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2- Informant on the other hand did not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He has also referred to the joint compromise affidavit at Annexure-3 and submitted before this Court that the matter has been amicably settled and that the Informant- injured Opposite Party No.2 does not want to proceed further in this case and, that he will have no objection in the event the entire criminal proceeding is quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction vide letter on 24.08.2026 of the IIC, Infocity Police Station, submitted before this Court that the matter has been amicably settled on compromise between the Parties. Further, referring to the instruction dated 24.08.2026, learned counsel for the State submitted that the concerned IIC verified the affidavit and found the same to be genuine. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that he will have no objection in the event this Court passes any appropriate order to secure the ends of justice.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the Parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the subsequent development in the shape of compromise which is evident from the joint compromise affidavit at Annexure-3 to the application, further taking note of the instruction of the IIC, Infocity Police Station on 24.08.2026, this Court found that the dispute between the Petitioner and the Informant has been amicably settled and that the joint affidavit filed before this Court is a genuine one. In such view of the matter, this Court examined the offences alleged and found that no offence under Sections 296 and 109 of the BNS is made out against the present Petitioner. Hence, the offences are quashed. So far as the other offences are concerned, the Parties are given liberty to move an application under Section 348 of the BNSS before the learned trial Court for compounding of the offences within two weeks’ from today. In such eventuality, the learned Court below shall consider the same by taking into consideration the aforesaid compromise and disposed of the application within a period of four weeks’ thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC application is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Sisir
Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 03-Sep-2026 20:20:50 Signature Not Verified