[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Manash Ranjan Samantaray vs State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite ... on 19 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.5522 of 2025
Manash Ranjan Samantaray ..... Petitioner (s)
Mr. Mruganka Mauli Patnaik,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA
Ms. Adyasha Mohapatra
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
19.01.2026
Order No.
03.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the
FIR in connection with Jatani P.S. Case No.162 of 2017, corresponding
to T.R Case No.920 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned 4th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-1.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the charge-
sheet in the present case was filed on 31.08.2025. It is further contended
that the alleged victim has categorically not supported the prosecution
case in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., thereby
striking at the very substratum of the allegations. It is urged that the
victim has since attained majority and is presently residing in a cordial,
voluntary, and harmonious relationship with the Petitioner as well as
his family members. The victim has consciously and unequivocally
expressed her unwillingness to pursue the criminal proceedings, and
there is no allegation of coercion, inducement, or undue influence.
4. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal prosecution,
bereft of prosecutorial support from the victim herself, would neither
advance the cause of justice nor serve any legitimate societal interest,
but would instead amount to an abuse of the process of law and result
in unnecessary harassment of the Petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the victim
has voluntarily sworn an affidavit placing on record her unequivocal
no-objection to the termination of the criminal proceedings arising out
of Jatani P.S. Case No.162 of 2017, corresponding to T.R. Case No.920 of
2017, presently pending before the Court of the learned 4th Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. It is contended that the said affidavit has
been executed out of her free will and volition, without any coercion,
inducement, or undue influence, and reflects a conscious and informed
decision to not to pursue the prosecution.
6. In such circumstances, where the victim herself seeks cessation of
the proceedings, the continuation of the trial would serve no meaningful
purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court,
warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of
justice. Learned counsel for the State strongly objects such kind of
termination of the case since it involves the offences under POCSO Act.
He further relies on the judgment in the case of Ramjilal Bairwa-
versus-State of Rajasthan 1. The relevant portion of the aforesaid
judgment is extracted hereunder:
"44.In view of the very object and purpose of
enacting the Pocso Act, we find no reason to
disagree with the conclusions in SCC OnLine Del
para 12 extracted above in the given Sunil Raikwar
case [Sunil Raikwar v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine
Del 258. It is more so, when the extracted portion
from the complaint that was annexed to the FIR
and extracted hereinbefore would reveal that the
accused was making pressure on him not to lodge
any report. Despite giving such statement in the
complaint, within a couple of weeks, the accused
managed to compromise the case with the 4th
respondent and his wife.
45. In the decision relied on by the High
Court to quash the proceedings viz. Gian Singh
case [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10
SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC
(Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] and the
decision in Laxmi Narayan case [State of
M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 :
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] in unambiguous terms
this Court held that the power under Section
482CrPC could not be used to quash proceedings
based on compromise if it is in respect of heinous
offence which are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on the society. When an incident of
the aforesaid nature and gravity allegedly occurred
in a higher secondary school, that too from a
teacher, it cannot be simply described as an offence
which is purely private in nature and has no
serious impact on the society.
1 (2025) 5 Supreme Court Cases 117
46. In view of the reasons as aforesaid and in
the light of the decisions referred supra, the
impugned order dated 4-2-2022 of the High Court
in Vimal Kumar Gupta v. State of
Rajasthan [Vimal Kumar Gupta v. State of
Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 3564] ,
quashing FIR No. 6/2022 dated 8-1-2022 and all
further proceedings pursuant thereto solely on the
ground that the accused and the complainant had
settled the matter, invites interference. We have no
hesitation to hold that in cases of this nature, the
fact that in view of compromise entered into
between the parties, the chance of a conviction is
remote and bleak also cannot be a ground to
abruptly terminate the investigation, by quashing
FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto,
by invoking the power under Section 482CrPC."
7. The gravity inherent in aggravated offences under the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, coupled with the profound
and enduring psychological, emotional, and social trauma suffered by
the child victim, renders the societal interest in prosecution both
paramount and non-derogable. The criminal process in such cases is not
merely retributive in character, but is fundamentally protective,
deterrent, and communicative, reaffirming the collective societal
resolve that sexual violence against children does not prescribe for of no
private bargain or negotiated closure.
8. In prosecutions involving aggravated offences under the POCSO
Act, this Court is unable to accept that any post-occurrence compromise
or settlement
Signature between the accused and the victim or her guardians can
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by:furnish a NAYAK
GITANJALI
Reason: Authentication
legitimate foundation for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction
Location: OHC
Date: 21-Jan-2026 18:27:27
to quash the proceedings. The inherent powers of this Court are
intended to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, not
to dilute the statutory mandate governing offences that constitute grave
public wrongs and implicate the State's constitutional obligation to
protect children.
9. Accordingly, this Court holds that in cases involving aggravated
POCSO offences, the inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the
basis of compromise alone. Any interference at the threshold stage must
be founded strictly on demonstrable legal infirmity, jurisdictional error,
or manifest absence of the essential statutory ingredients of the offence,
and not on considerations extraneous to the legislative object of the
enactment. Consequently, this Court declines to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction to quash the proceedings on the basis of any compromise or
settlement between the parties, as such offences represent non-
derogable public wrongs, admitting of judicial interference only where
the prosecution is vitiated at its very inception in law. However, this
court directs the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as
possible.
10. The CRLMC is disposed of, accordingly.
11. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
