[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Rahul Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 29 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 1807 of 2024
Rahul Pradhan .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Susanta Kumar Lenka
Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Sonak Misrha, ASC
Mr. Achyutananda Pattnaik,
Advocate for O.P No.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
29.01.2026
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 criminal proceeding in CT Case No.08 of 2020 vide Annexure-1
pending before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special
Court under POCSO Act, Phulbani.
3. The brief facts of the case, as alleged in the FIR, are that the
petitioner and the informant were acquainted through telephonic
communication. On 14.02.2020, the informant allegedly
accompanied the petitioner to Bhubaneswar to work in a beauty
parlour, and both resided together in a rented house at Salia Sahi,
Ekamra Villa, Bhubaneswar. It is alleged that during such stay, the
petitioner committed repeated sexual intercourse with the
informant forcibly and without her consent. The informant
returned to her parental home on 15.03.2020 and did not disclose
the alleged incident to anyone at that point of time. It is further
alleged that on 29.05.2020, the petitioner called the informant
outside her house, threatened and assaulted her. Thereafter, the
informant disclosed the alleged incident to her parents, pursuant to
which the FIR was lodged, giving rise to the present proceeding.
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 with a child born out of the wedlock, and that the
dispute stands settled, as evidenced by a joint affidavit filed by
both the parties.
5. This Court has perused the joint affidavit filed by the
parties. The relevant contents thereof are extracted hereunder: --
"1. That in the above-mentioned case,
allegations have been made under Sections 376(3),.
376(2)(n), 506, 363 of the IPC and Section 6 of the
POCSO Act.
2. That the Opposite Party No.2 is the victim
in the present case, and the entire incident arose out
of a love relationship between the accused-petitioner
and Opposite Party No.2. At the time of the alleged
occurrence, Opposite Party No.2 had already
attained the age of majority. Out of their wedlock
they have blessed a girl child, and both are presently
leading a happy conjugal life as husband and wife.
3. That Opposite Party No.2 does not wish to
proceed with the prosecution, as the conviction of the
petitioner would have devastating effect on the
marital life of both parties.
4. That since the petitioner and Opposite
Party No.2 are already living together as husband
and wife, with their marital relationship being
accepted and supported by their parents, any
continuation of the criminal trial which may result
in conviction would seriously jeopardize their future.
5. That Opposite Party No.2 has no objection
if the aforesaid P.S./C.T. case is quashed. Quashing
the proceeding will be in the best interest of their
future and the welfare of their newly established
conjugal life. Therefore, for the ends of justice, the
criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed for the
betterment of both parties.
6. That the facts stated above are true to the
best of our knowledge belief and information."
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 Opposite
Party No.2 asserts that she had attained the age of majority at the
time of the alleged occurrence and that the relationship between
the parties was consensual. The parties have subsequently married,
are living together peacefully, and have a child born out of the
wedlock. 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. 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.
13. 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.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the CRLMC stands
allowed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding in C.T. Case
No. 08 of 2020/Annexure-1, pending before the learned Additional
District Judge-cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Phulbani,
is hereby quashed.
15. The CRLMC is disposed of, accordingly.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
