Orissa High Court
) Manoj Kumar Mahakud vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 25 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1394 of 2025
1) Manoj Kumar Mahakud ..... Petitioners
2) Rabindra Mahakud Represented By Adv. -
3) Rabindra Dehudi @ Muni Barik Trilochan Nanda
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Harekrushna Pradhan Represented By Adv. -
3) Jasmine Pradhan Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C.
M/s. Braja Kishore
Panda
CORAM:
THE H ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
25.11.2025
Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned
counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer
made therein.
3. The accused-Petitioner No.1 has approached this Court by filing
the present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. which
corresponds to 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire
criminal proceeding arising out of Tarasing P.S. Case No.29 of 2024
which corresponds to G.R. Case No.83 of 2024 now pending in the
Court of learned J.M.F.C., J.N.Prasad, Ganjam by invoking the
inherent power of this Court. The case of the prosecution in brief is that
the informant who happens to be the father of the victim lodged the
report before the Tarasing police station on 07.02.2024 alleging that
the daughter of the informant, who is Opposite Party No.3 in this case,
has been kidnapped in a vehicle having Registration No.OD-02-BD-
3078. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the PS case was initially
registered for commission of an offence punishable under Section 363
of the I.P.C. It appears from the record that the victim was
subsequently rescued by the police.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that
the Petitioner No.1 proposed to marry the victim, however the victim
did not agree to such proposal initially. Thereafter, she was taken away
by the friends of the victim from her village and she stayed at
Bhubaneswar along with the accused. Learned counsel for the
Petitioners contended that in the meantime the victim has married to
the Petitioner No.1 and they are staying together as husband and wife
and leading a happy conjugal life. He further contended that in the
meantime the dispute has been resolved amicably with the intervention
of the family members as well as the well-wishers and both the victim
and the informant do not want to proceed further in the present
criminal case.
5. In course of his argument learned counsel for the Petitioners
further emphatically argued that the victim is a major girl, that the
Petitioner No.1 has married the victim with her consent and they are
both living together happily. He further submitted that the victim has
not alleged any ill-treatment or any kind of sexual assault by the
Petitioner No.1 initially. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for
the Petitioners contended that further continuance of criminal
proceeding would cause disruption in their marital life and, as such, the
same would not be larger interest of justice. Accordingly, it was prayed
that the entire criminal proceeding against the Petitioners be quashed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the informant on the other hand
supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
Petitioners in course of his argument. He also referred to the joint
affidavit filed before this Court by both the Petitioners and the
Opposite Party-2-Infomrant. On perusal of the aforesaid joint affidavit,
it appears that with the intervention of the villagers and the well-
wishers the matter has been amicably settled and that the parties wish
to live peacefully in the locality. The Opposite Party No.2-Informant
has categorically stated that she does not proceed further against the
present Petitioners and that the informant will have no objection in the
event the entire criminal proceeding is quashed.
7. So far the victim is concerned, it appears from order dated
23.04.2025 of a coordinate Bench of this Court that the informant and
victim both appeared before the coordinate Bench. In para-3 of the said
order the learned coordinate Bench has categorically recorded the
statement of the informant that in view of the marriage between the
Petitioner No.1 and the victim-Opposite Party No.3, the Opposite Party
No.2-informant does not have any objection of the entire criminal
proceeding is quashed. Moreover, on perusal of the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it appears that she has
stated before the learned Magistrate that although she was taken away
from the backside of her house by the friends of the Petitioner No.1 to
Bhubaneswar, where she stayed for five days, however, she has
specifically stated that the Petitioner No.1 did not ill-treat her and that
they have not kept any physical relationship during such stage. Such
statement further reveals that she was threatened by the Petitioner No.1
and his uncle not to disclose anything and finally she was dropped at
the Odagaon police outpost from where she was rescued by the police.
8. On perusal of the case diary it is revealed that the Petitioner
No.1 had married the Opposite Party No.3 on 27.03.2024 at Sri
Kedaraswar Temple. Similarly, an affidavit has also been shown by the
Opposite Party No.3 and filed by the police which forms a part of the
case diary. On perusal of the said affidavit, it appears that the Opposite
Party No.3, had a love relationship with the Petitioner, that they have
married in the meantime and they are staying together as husband and
wife. Such affidavit dated 28.03.2024 is also a part of the police record.
Similarly, the victim has also revealed an undertaking before the
police, which forms part of the case diary, that she had married the
Petitioner No.1 on her own volition on 27.03.2024.
9. Regard being had to the submissions by respective parties, on a
careful examination of the background facts, the subsequent
development, as well as the statement of the victim, on a careful
examination of the case diary and keeping in view of the statement of
the Informant before this Court on 23.04.2025, this Court observes that
the Petitioner No.1 and the Opposite Party No.3-vicitm have married in
the meantime and they have staying together as husband and wife.
Such fact is not disputed by any of the parties. Therefore, the question
which remains to be in decided in the present case is as to whether the
case under Section 363 I.P.C. is made out against the accused-
Petitioner No.1. On perusal of the statement of the victim, it appears
that some persons took away the victim from the backside of the house.
However, she has not implicated the Petitioner No.1. She has further
stated that when she stayed in Bhubaneswar and stayed with the
Petitioner No.1, the Petitioner No.1 has not ill-treated or sexually
abused the victim. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view
that the case under Section 363 of the I.P.C. is clearly made out against
the present Petitioners. Further, taking note of the fact that the
Petitioner No.1 and the Opposite Party No.3 have married in the
meantime and they are staying together as husband and wife, allowing
the present criminal proceeding to continue further would cause
disruption in their otherwise peaceful marital life. In the aforesaid
context, this Court would like to refer to order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ananda D.V. vs. State and Others in Criminal
Appeal No.394-395 of 2021 decided on 12.04.2021. Similarly, another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.41 of
2021 decided on 30.01.2025 in the case of Shriram Urav vs. State of
Chhatisgarh can also be referred to in the facts and circumstances for
the present case. The law in the context of the present dispute has been
discussed in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another bearing in
Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No.11642
of 2019 decided on 02.09.2025. Applying the ratio laid down in the
case Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), as has been narrated in the
Para-20 of the said judgment, this Court is of the view that the facts of
the present case squarely falls within the principle laid down in the
aforesaid judgment. Furthermore, on a careful analysis of the factual
background of the present case as well as the subsequent
developments, this Court is of the considered view that the present case
is one where this Court can exercise its inherent powers to secure
interests of justice. Accordingly, the Criminal proceeding against the
Petitioners in of G.R. Case No.83 of 2024 arising out of Tarasing P.S.
Case No.29 of 2024 is hereby quashed.
10. Accordingly, the CRLMC application stands allowed.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
