1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioners have filed this CRLMC with a prayer to
quash the criminal proceeding in connection with Rambha P.S.
pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Ganjam,
3. The brief facts of the case, as alleged in the FIR, are that the
Opposite Party No.2 being the informant lodged an F.I.R. on
29.08.2019 which was registered as Rambha P.S. Case No. 173 of
2019. It was alleged by the informant that the Petitioner No.2 kept
physical relationship with his daughter since last one year by
assuring to marry her even though she was a minor at that time.
Even though in the village meeting it was settled that the Petitioner
No.2 would marry the Opposite party No.3, but later he refused. It
was further alleged that the Petitioner No.2 abused the informant
in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences and
ultimately the F.I.R. was lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner and the informant were in a consensual relationship,
that they have subsequently solemnized their marriage and are
living together, and that the dispute stands settled, as evidenced by
a joint affidavit filed in Court today by both the parties, which is
5. This Court has perused the joint affidavit filed by the
parties. The relevant contents thereof are extracted hereunder: --
"1. That the petitioners in the present
application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 r/w Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 are praying for
quashing of the criminal proceedings in connection
with Rambha P.S. Case No. 173 of 2019
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 105 of 2019 pending
before the learned Special Judge (POSCO), Ganjam,
Berhampur on the ground that the Petitioner No. 2
and the Opp. Party No. 3 have married to each other
on 6.7.2025 and they have also registered their
marriage before the Registrar of Marriage, Khallikote
which will be clear from a perusal of Annexure- 3 to
the present CRLMC.
2. That it would be pertinent to mention that
the petitioners and the informant- Opp. Party No. 2
have reached an amicable settlement as in the
meantime the petitioner No.2 has married the
opposite party No.3 and the same has been duly
registered on 15.10.2025. Furthermore, in the
meantime the informant Opp. party No.2 who is
none other than the father of the Opp. party No.3
(victim) has clearly stated u/s 164 of I.P.C./183 of
BNSS, 2023 that the petitioner No.2 and the opp.
Party No.3 after their marriage have been leading a
happy and peaceful married life together and that the
marriage took place with the consent of the family
members of both sides in the temple as well as court
marriage. It was further stated by the Opp. Party No.
2- Informant in his statement recorded u/s 164 of the
Cr.P.C/u/s. 183 of the BNSS, 2023 that he wants
that the Petitioner No. 2 (Son-in-Law) to be
exonerated from the present criminal proceeding.
3. That the Opp. Party No. 3 also states that
the Opp. Party No. 3 is living a peaceful and happy
married life with the Petitioner No. 2 and it is further
stated that the Opp. Party No. 3 does not want the
criminal proceeding to continue against the
Petitioners as it will serve no purpose and will cause
undue harassment to the Petitioners and the Opp.
Party Nos. 2 and 3.
4. That the parties do hereby agree that they
will not raise any further dispute in future after
5. That the Opp. Party Nos. 2 and 3 state
that the present joint affidavit is being filed out of
their own volition and without any coercion from
any quarter and that continuation of G.R. Case No.
105 of 2019 before the learned Special Judge
(POCSO), Ganjam, Berhampur will only cause
undue harassment to the parties and will disturb the
peaceful married life of the Petitioner No. 2 and Opp.
Party No. 3.
6. That in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances it would be expedient in the interest of
justice to quash the criminal proceedings in
connection with Rambha P.S. Case No. 173 of 2019
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 105 of 2019 pending
before the learned Special Judge (POSCO), Ganjam,
Berhampur vis-à-vis the present petitioners."
6. Having perused the joint affidavit by the parties, this court
is of the view that the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of
this Court under Section 482 CrPC is well settled. Such power is to
be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to secure the
ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. At the
same time, it is equally settled that the High Court, in appropriate
cases, is not powerless to quash criminal proceedings even in
respect of non-compoundable offences, if the facts and
circumstances so warrant and if continuation of the proceedings
would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
7. It is also trite that offences under the POCSO Act are grave
in nature and ordinarily ought not to be quashed on the basis of
compromise between the parties. However, the power under
Section 482 CrPC is not to be exercised on the basis of the label of
the offence alone, but on a holistic consideration of the facts of each
case, the nature of the dispute, the stage of the proceedings, and
the consequences of allowing the prosecution to continue.
8. In the present case, the joint affidavit reveals that parties
have subsequently married, are living together peacefully.
Opposite Party No.2 has expressed her unequivocal unwillingness
to support the prosecution. This Court has also ensured the
personal presence of the petitioner and the informant as well as
victim and all are in unison stated that they don't want to
unnecessarily prolong the criminal proceedings
9. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the possibility
of the prosecution culminating in a conviction is extremely remote.
Continuation of the criminal proceeding, despite the complete
settlement between the parties and their settled matrimonial life,
would only result in unnecessary harassment, prolongation of
litigation, and wastage of valuable judicial time, without serving
any meaningful purpose.
10. This Court is conscious of the fact that quashing of criminal
proceedings should not be permitted to defeat the object of special
statutes. However, the peculiar facts of the present case, coupled
with the unequivocal stand of the victim-informant and the
subsequent developments, persuade this Court to hold that the
ends of justice would be better served by putting an end to the
criminal proceeding rather than allowing it to continue
mechanically.
11. This Court clarifies that the present order is passed in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated
as a precedent in cases involving allegations under the POCSO Act
where such mitigating circumstances are absent.
12. Considering the contents of the joint affidavit filed by the
parties and following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another1 and two other
reported cases of this Court in Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four
others v. State of Orissa and four others2, and Sansuri alias
Khageswar Lenka and another -vrs.- State of Orissa and
Another3, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will
be served in allowing such proceedings to continue the criminal
proceeding in the aforesaid case as it will only lead to abuse the
process of law.
(2012) 10 SCC 303
2014 (II) OLR 29
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceeding
would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
14. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner and upon careful perusal of the joint affidavit
filed by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. In the
circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceeding at this stage
would serve no useful or meaningful purpose and would only
result in unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings and
avoidable burden on the docket of the Court.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the CRLMC stands
allowed. Consequently, the criminal proceeding in connection with
Rambha P.S. Case No.173 of 2019, corresponding to G.R Case
No.105 of 2019 pending in the court of learned Special Judge
(POCSO), Ganjam, Berhampur, is hereby quashed.
16. The CRLMC is disposed of, accordingly.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
