[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Biswajit Behera vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 16 January, 2026

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                    CRLMC No. 5125 of 2025
                 Biswajit Behera                  ....               Petitioner(s)
                                                       Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate


                                            -versus-

             State of Odisha and another          ....          Opposite Party(s)
                                                              Ms. S. Devi, ASC

                     CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

                                          ORDER

Order No.                                16.01.2026
 03.        1.         Heard.

2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in

Banigochha P.S. Case No. 133 of 2025 came to be registered

against the petitioner corresponding to Special G.R. Case No. 81 of

2025, pending in the court of the learned ADJ-cum-Special Judge,

POCSO, Nayagarh registered for the alleged commission of

offences under Sections 137(2)/87/64(2) of BNS, 2023.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 18.11.2025,

the victim appeared before the IIC, Banigochha Police Station and

submitted a written report alleging therein that on 11.11.2025, the

Petitioner had invited her to Dasapalla to meet him through mobile

phone on the pretext of marriage. When she reached the Dasapalla

bus stand, the Petitioner took her to Puja Lodge where they stayed

together. On the next day, the petitioner left for his home. On

13.11.2025, while searching for the Petitioner, the victim reached

Banigochha. The Petitioner then took her to his aunt's house and on

14.11.2025, he took her to his Khudi (Aunt)'s house at

Bhubaneswar. On 15.11.2025, the Petitioner's family members

came there, scolded the victim, and took the Petitioner away with

them. Thereafter, she faced several difficulties. It is further alleged

that the Petitioner had established physical relationship with her on

the false promise of marriage. On the basis of such report

Banigochha P.S. Case No.133 dtd.18.11.2025 was registered

against the Petitioner.

4. Investigation in the present case is going on. During the

investigation, the statement of the victim has been recorded under

section 164 Cr.P.C. corresponding section 183 BNSS, 2023. The

victim has reiterated her statement, as has been given to the police

on the basis of the FIR registered. When the matter stood thus, the

parties have entered into a settlement, as per the submission made

by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The father of the victim as well as the victim are present in

the Court and being represented and identified by their respective

counsels. They have also filed self-attested copies of their Aadhaar

Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record.

6. The father of the victim has filed an affidavit before this

Court, inter alia, stating as under:-

"2. That, due to certain misunderstandings, emotional distress and confusion, the FIR in the aforementioned case came to be lodged against the Petitioner herein. The FIR was lodged under the above circumstances and the same resulted from miscommunication between the families.

3. That, upon intervention of well-wishers, respected elders and after discussion between both families, there remains no subsisting dispute, grievance or allegation against the Petitioner.

4. That, neither I nor my daughter/informant have any objection if the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of it are quashed by this Hon'ble Court. We voluntarily support the prayer for quashing, without any coercion, threat, undue influence or inducement from any person.

5. That, the victim girl is presently in a stable emotional condition and has expressed her free and voluntary consent for not proceeding with the aforementioned criminal case any further.

6. That, continuation of the aforementioned criminal proceeding will serve no fruitful purpose and may cause unnecessary hardship to both families. The Petitioner and our family have mutually decided to maintain peace and cordial relations.

7. That, I state on oath that the statements are genuine, voluntary and in the best interest of the victim. I fully understand the nature and seriousness of the case and state that we do not wish to pursue the prosecution."

7. The petitioner is a young man of 21 years and the victim

is 17 years of age, therefore both of them are of same age group.

The petitioner is in custody since 11.01.2026. On the query from

the Court, the father of the victim as well as the victim reiterated

that they do not want to prosecute the petitioner anymore, as there

was intervention of well-wishers as such settlement has been

arrived at. However, fact remains that the investigation in the

present case is still going on and the victim herself made the

statement before the Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS, 2023

implicating the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, quashing of the

FIR on the basis of the affidavit filed by the father of the victim

may not be expedient.

8. At this stage, Mr. S. Sourav, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that at least the petitioner may be admitted to

bail.

9. The State counsel oppose the prayer made by the

petitioner on the ground that while exercising the jurisdiction under

482 Cr.P.C., the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be allowed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to

two judgments of this Court in the case of Rosolin Rout vrs. State

of Odisha and another, 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1339 and

Fayazuddin Khan @ Badal Khan vrs. State of Odisha and others,

CRLMC No. 3850 2024 disposed of on 04.03.2025. In Fayazuddin

Khan @ Badal Khan (supra), this Court while dealing with the

facts akin to present case has observed as under:-

"Running a trial against the petitioner in this case would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly given the fact that the victim and the petitioner have entered into a marital relationship and are living together in harmony. Sending the man to prison would not only be unjust but would also work against the best interests of the victim, as it could disrupt the peaceful life they have built together. The continuation of legal proceedings under these circumstances serves no legitimate purpose and would only perpetuate unnecessary hardship to both the parties. In light of their reconciliation and the societal approval of their relationship, it would be more appropriate to quash the proceedings, allowing them to move forward with their lives without the burden of legal interference. Similar view has been echoed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by orally observing in the recent case In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, wherein the court observed as under:-

"This is one case [where] because of the fault of the system, this man will get benefit. He will not get benefit because he has done something good, but to protect the victim and the child"

11. On the basis of the fact of that case, the Court arrived at a

conclusion that the petitioner and the victim were involved in the

adolescent consensual relationship, which is distinguishable from

the sexual abuse, hence criminalization of such relationship is

forbidden in law. Similarly, the petitioner had also relied upon the

recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State

of Uttar Pradesh vrs, Anurudh and another reported in 2026 INSC

47, wherein it has been held as under:-

"19. As the conclusions drawn above indicate the impugned judgment and order of the High Court has to be set aside on grounds of transgression of the jurisdiction present and thereby lacking the appropriate directions. It is to be set aside also because it goes against the statutory prescription under the JJ Act. Be that as it may, this Court has not lost sight of the well-intentioned purport of this order. The POCSO Act is one of the most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow. Yet, when an instrument of such noble and one may even say basic good intent is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion. Courts have in many cases sounded alarm regarding this situation. Misuse of the POCSO Act highlights a grim societal chasm - on the one end children are silenced by fear and their families are constrained by poverty or stigma, meaning thereby that justice remains distant and uncertain, and on the other hand, those equipped with privilege, literacy, social and monetary capital are able to manipulate the law to their advantage. The impugned judgment is one amongst many where Courts have spoken out. Not only are instances rife where the age of the victim is misrepresented to make the incident fall under the stringent provisions of this law but also there are numerous instances where this law is used by families in opposition to relationships between young people. In Satish alias Chand v. State of U.P. [ Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 18596 of 2024] , the High Court, noted that on few occasions concern had been expressed by the Court with respect to application of the Act on consenting adolescence when it comes to consensual relationships between teenagers, four factors have been highlighted which, is crucial for the Courts to consider:

"A. Assess the Context: Each case should be evaluated on its individual facts and circumstances. The nature of the relationship and the intentions of both parties should be carefully examined.

B. Consider Victim's Statement: The statement of the alleged victim should be given due consideration. If the relationship is consensual and based on mutual affection, this should be factored into decisions regarding bail and prosecution. C. Avoid Perversity of Justice: Ignoring the consensual nature of a relationship can lead to unjust outcomes, such as wrongful imprisonment. The judicial system should aim to balance the protection of minors with the recognition of their autonomy in certain contexts. Here the age comes out to be an important factor.

D. Judicial Discretion: Courts should use their discretion wisely, ensuring that the application of POCSO does not inadvertently harm the very individuals it is meant to protect."

[See also: Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu v. State of U.P.] [2023: AHC : 204171] The Delhi High Court in Sahil v. the State NCT of Delhi [2024:

DHC: 6100] the Court noted in para 11 of the order that POCSO cases filed at the behest of a girl's family objecting to romantic involvement with a young boy have become common place and consequent thereto these young boys languish in jails. Therein, reference is also made to an order of the Gujarat High Court [Jayantibhai Babulbhai Alani v. State of Gujarat2018 SCC OnLine Guj. 1223] , where the Court noted that considering the closeness in age of the prosecutrix and the accused as also the fact that she had left home of her own accord observed that the application deserved consideration.

This chasm between access and abuse is also mirrored in the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Amongst numerous examples, we may only refer to Rajesh Chaddha v. State of U.P [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094] , where this Court lamented the use of these Sections without specific instances or relevant details, among other cases. It is also to be stated though that no amount of judicial vigilance against misuse can alone bridge this ever-widening gap. The first line of defence lies with the Bar i.e., the body that translates grievance into action and is the gatekeeper of justice at the point of entry. When it comes to matters such as these, the responsibility of the advocate is profound - to examine the allegations with detachment and necessary discretion and to counsel restraint when grievance masks vengeance and to refuse participation in litigation when it can be seen that an ulterior motive is sought to be agitated under the guise of seeking protection of the law. It is only when the Bar takes a principled, proactive role, that the legislation intended as a shield can be stopped from being twisted into a weapon. A lawyer who tempers aggression with calm, reason and rationality, protects not only the opposing party from unwarranted harm but also the client from the long-term consequences of frivolous or malicious litigation, including adverse orders, and judicial censure. By taking a principled stand, the Bar acts as a crucial filter, preventing the legal system from being overwhelmed by abuse masquerading as enforcement. Such self-regulation strengthens public faith in the profession, ensures that judicial time is reserved for genuine disputes, and reinforces the foundational idea that law is a means of justice, not a weapon of convenience. In this sense, the ethical vigilance of lawyers is not ancillary to justice, it is indispensable to it. When they do not do so, the chasm alluded to above widens. Society also must match institutional reform with moral awakening. The intent and object of these legislations must be at the forefront when a person wishes to lodge a complaint thereunder. The misuse of these laws is a mirror to

the opportunistic and self-centered view that pervades the application of law. It is only through discipline, integrity and courage that these problems can be remedied and rooted out. Any legislative amendment or judicial direction will remain lack-luster without this deeper change.

We have referred to certain instances of the High Courts noting the misuse/misapplication of the POCSO Act, somewhat in line with the indices appended to the impugned judgment as also its progenitors. Considering the fact that repeated judicial notice has been taken of the misuse of these laws, let a copy of this judgment be circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider initiation of steps as may be possible to curb this menace inter alia, the introduction of a Romeo - Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law; enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws seeks to settle scores etc."

12. On the basis of the pronouncement of this Court as well as

Supreme Court in the judgment cited at the Bar, Mr. Sourav,

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at least the petitioner

is entitled to grant of bail.

13. In view of the aforementioned, while disposing of the

present petition, I feel it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to

move an application before the learned trial court for grant of bail.

If such bail application is move, the learned trial court, shall take

into consideration the judgments cited at the Bar and the fact of the

present case as well as by taking into consideration the affidavit

filed by the father of the victim, consider the bail application. It is

open for the trial court to verify the authenticity of the affidavit