Deepak @ Dipak Kumar Sahu vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 10740 Ori

Orissa High Court

Deepak @ Dipak Kumar Sahu vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 1 December, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  CRLMC No.4250 of 2025
                 Deepak @ Dipak Kumar Sahu    .....       Petitioner
                                                               Represented By Adv. -
                                                               Bharat Bhusan Routray

                                              -versus-
                 State Of Odisha                     .....            Opposite Party
                                                               Represented By Adv. -
                                                               Mr. C.M.Singh, A.S.C.

                                     CORAM:
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                   MOHAPATRA

                                             ORDER

01.12.2025 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in Special G.R. Case No.136 of 2023 which arises out of Sundargarh Town P.S. Case No.324 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Sundargarh for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA)Act as amended of the year 2015.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that no case is made out against the present Petitioner under Section

376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. as the relationship between the Petitioner and the victim was consensual and that at the relevant point of time both were major. Since the marriage could not materialise between the two, the victim-informant has lodged this F.I.R. against the accused- Petitioner. In course of argument learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the judgment dated 14.02.2025 of this Court in Criminal Misc. case No.4485 of 2024 in the case of Manoj Kumar Munda vs. State of Odisha and placed heavy reliance of such judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the maintainability of the present application. Learned counsel for the State seriously disputed the applicability of the ratio of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He further submitted that in the meantime the trial has already commenced and that some of the witnesses from the side of the prosecution have already been examined. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the State referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in X vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2024) SCC online 3539 and contended that since the trial has commenced and some of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined, and taking into consideration the fact that the allegation is under Section 376(2)(n) of I.P.C., this Court should not interfere with the criminal proceeding at this stage. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the application filed at the instance of the Petitioner is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the case of the prosecution as pleaded in

the F.I.R., this Court prima facie observes that the victim-informant has admitted about the consensual relationship with the Petitioner. Thereafter, although a promise was made by the Petitioner to marry the victim however, that marriage did not take place by citing the past of the present petitioner. On a plain reading of the F.I.R., this Court is of the view that a case under Section 3 of SC & ST( PoA) Act is well made out against the present Petitioner. Further, on a careful reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the State, this Court observes that the same is in the context of a bail application and not with regard to the exercise of the inherent power by this Court. As such the ratio laid down in the said order is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present application by granting liberty to the Petitioner to raise all the grounds at the time bound final hearing of the trial pending before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sundargarh.

7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge

Rubi