Orissa High Court
Akshaya Kumar Pattnaik vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opp. ... on 10 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4386 of 2024
Akshaya Kumar Pattnaik .... Petitioner
Mr. Bishnu
Prasad Pradhan
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr.Bibekananda
Nayak, AGA &
Mr. Manas
Kumar Chand,
Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 10.04.2025
03.
1.
Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the
F.I.R. in connection with Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S.
Case No.82 of 2024 corresponding to C.T. Case No.856
of 2024 came to be registered against the petitioner for
the alleged commission of offences punishable under
Sections 376(2)(n)/493/506 of the IPC, pending in the
Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.
3. The opposite party No.2 reported alleging therein
that, on 29.03.2017, she came to the OCAC Tower,
Bhubaneswar for attending an interview. For the first
time, she came in contact with the present petitioner
in the said interview. Thereafter, the petitioner called
her to Bhubaneswar. Both of them went to watch the
movie. Then they came back to the boys' hostel to
attend one birthday party. At that time none of the
inmates were present in the petitioner's room. The
petitioner gave her cold drink. After taking cold drink,
she became senseless. When she regained her senses,
she found herself in naked. She was also feeling pain
in her private part. On being asked, the petitioner
admitted that he had mixed some medicine in the cold
drink. The petitioner admitted before her that she has
committed sexual act with her. However, the petitioner
assured to marry her. Subsequently, the petitioner
threatened her that, if she discloses this fact before
anybody, he would viral her naked photographs. Since
then, the petitioner has been in physical relationship
with her. Hence, the F.I.R.
4. During the investigation, the statement of the
victim-opposite party No.2 was recorded under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C. Although she stated against the
petitioner, but she has also stated in her statement
that, various attempts have been made during the
investigation for the purpose of settlement to which
she had not agreed. Therefore, eventually the I.O. has
filed the charge sheet on 31.01.2025 for the alleged
commission of the offences under Sections
376(2)(n)/506 of the IPC against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner is 29 years old and he is working as
Cost Accountant at Raipur whereas the victim-
opposite party No.2 is 27 years. She is a graduate
Engineer. Both the petitioner and the opposite party
No.2 were in relationship and now they have settled
their dispute amicably. On the basis of the settlement
terms, the present petition has been filed seeking
quashing of the F.I.R.
6. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 are
present in the Court today. They are being represented
by their respective counsel and identified by them.
They have also filed the photocopies of their respective
Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are
taken on record.
7. The victim girl-opposite party No.2, who is present
in the Court, on the query from the Court, stated that,
she was in relationship with the petitioner. However,
due to the misunderstanding and sudden provocation,
she has lodged the F.I.R. against the petitioner. The
opposite party No.2 and the petitioner have now
settled the dispute and they want to put a quietus to
the entire dispute. They became friends.
8. The opposite party No.2 has also filed an affidavit
before this Court dated 25.11.2024, inter alia, stating
as under:
"1. That, I am the informant of Bhubaneswar Mahila
P.S. Case No-82/2024, corresponding to C.T Case
No-856/2024 on the file of the learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhubaneswar for commission of alleged offences
punishable U/S- U/S-376 (2) (n) /493/506 of IPC.
2. That I have been arrayed as an Opp.Party No-2 in
the aforesaid CRLMC. I have gone through the
averments made in the aforesaid CRLMC and have
understood the contents made thereof.
3. That with the intervention of well-wishers, friends
and family members of both the parties, dispute has
been settled amicably between me and petitioner.
4. That, since the dispute has been settled amicably,
I don't want to proceed further in Bhubaneswar
Mahila P.S. Case No-82/2024, corresponding to C.T
Case No-856/2024 on the file of the learned
S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.
5. That the petitioner is a student of Cost
Management Accountant and prosecuting his studies
in the institute of Cost Accountants of India,
Bhubaneswar. I have also completed B-Tech. We
both of us are major. We have also voluntarily taken
a decision to settle the dispute amicably considering
our future prospectus. Therefore, criminal proceeding
initiated against the petitioner vide Bhubaneswar
Mahila P.S. Case No-82 /2024 may be quashed for
the ends of justice.
6. That the present affidavit is being filed for the
greater interest of both the family members. There is
no fraud or coercion in dissolving the dispute
between us. We have voluntarily dissolve our
dispute amicably. If the criminal proceeding vide
Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No-82/2024 will
continue, it will affect my future life. In such view of
the matter, Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No-
82/2024, corresponding to C.T Case No-856/2024
may be quashed.
7. That, I have sweared this affidavit voluntarily for
the greater interest of both the parties."
9. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1-State
submits that the entire prosecution case hinges upon
the statement of the prosecutrix i.e. the victim girl. He
has heavily relied upon the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C to oppose
the prayer of the petitioner.
10. Perusal of the charge sheet and the documents
placed on record and the evidence form part of the
charge sheet reveals that the prosecution case stands
only on the evidence of the prosecutrix. Since the
prosecutrix is not supporting the prosecution and she
has filed the affidavit stating that she has already
settled the dispute with the petitioner and she does
not want to prosecute the petitioner. Even if the
petitioner is subjected to the rigors of the trial, it
would be a futile exercise. Therefore, facts scenario of
the present case is covered by the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10)
SCC 303; B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana
& another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & another v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others,
reported in AIR 1988 SC 709. Hence, the petition
deserves merit. Therefore, there is no legal impediment
in quashing the present F.I.R.
11. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
judgments, the facts of the case and submissions
made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with
Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.82 of 2024
corresponding to C.T. Case No.856 of 2024 pending in
the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the
petitioner are quashed, subject to the petitioner paying
cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to
the opposite party No.2 and file the receipt of the
same.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 11-Apr-2025 18:55:29
