[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Basanti Barik & Anr vs State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opp. Parties on 10 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4233 of 2025
Basanti Barik & Anr. ..... Petitioners
Represented By Adv. -
Mohammed Riaz
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opp. Parties
Represented By Adv. -
U.C. Jena, A.S.C.
M/s Akshaya Kumar
Bisoi, Satya Prakash (for
Victim)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
10.12.2025
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned
counsel for the Victim and 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 accused-Petitioners seek quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding in Special G.R Case No.137 of 2018 which
arises out of Cuttack Mahila P.S Case No.94 of 2018 registered
under Sections 376(2)(n)/313/506/34 of IPC read with Section 6
of the POCSO Act, 2012.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended
that the FIR was lodged against the present Petitioners as well as
against the principal accused, namely, Bapi @ Binod Barik and
another co-accused, namely, Satru Behera. After completion of
the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed on 20.09.2019 at
Annexure-2 whereby the Petitioners have been charge sheeted for
commission of offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 506,
34 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s)/ 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (PoA)
Act, 1989. He further submitted that in the meantime the trial has
commenced and some of the witnesses including the victim have
already been examined by the learned trial court. Learned counsel
for the Petitioners also contended that since no case is made out
against the present Petitioners, it is clear that the Petitioner No.1,
who happens to be the mother of the principal accused and the
Petitioner No.2, who is the sister of the principal accused, have
been falsely implicated in the present case by the victim. He
further submitted that there exists no material to establish the fact
that the present Petitioners were involved in the alleged crime, in
any manner. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners
contended that the further continuance of the present proceeding
against the present Petitioners for the charge sheeted offences
would be an abuse of the process of law. In course of his
argument, learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted
that in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled and that
the victim does want to proceed further against the present
Petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the appearing for the victim-Opposite
Party No.2, referring to the affidavit filed by the victim-informant
before this Court on 18.11.2025, which was sworn before the Oath
Commissioner, stated that the victim-informant does not want to
proceed against the present Petitioners and that she will have no
objection in the event the entire proceeding is quashed qua the
present Petitioners. The affidavit further indicates that the victim
has already married in the meantime and she is at an advanced
stage of pregnant. On such ground, learned counsel for the
Informant-victim contended before this Court that the victim will
have no objection in the event the proceeding is quashed against
the present Petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to
the quashing of the criminal proceeding against the present
Petitioners. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the
State objected to the quashing of the criminal proceeding against
the Petitioner while submitting before this Court that the offence
involved in the present case is heinous in nature and that the same
should not have been compromised contrary to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that the trial has
already commenced. Therefore, this Court should not interfere
with the trial in exercise of its inherent power. On such ground,
learned counsel for the State contended that the present
application is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should
be dismissed.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of
the allegation made in the FIR as well as the charge sheet, further
taking note of the subsequent development, this Court is of the
considered view that considering the gravity and seriousness of
the allegation, the matter could not have been compromised. Even
if such matter has been compromised, such compromise cannot be
legally recognised. However, taking into consideration the fact
that the Petitioners in the present case are the mother and sister of
the principal accused and keeping in view the offences alleged in
the charge sheet against them, this Court deems it proper to
dispose of the present application by directing the learned trial
court to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously
as possible preferably within a period of four months from the
date of communication of a copy of today's order.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLMC
stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 11-Dec-2025 19:22:31
