The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 06. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.591 of 2025 Pankaj Kanhar ..... 1) State Of Odisha 2) The Informant -versus- ..... Appellant Represented By Adv. - Suryakanta Dwibedi Respondents Represented By Adv. - Mr. Soumya Ranjan Das
Decision
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 20.08.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the leaned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the informant. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present CRLMC application under section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding arising out of I.C.C.Case No.72 of 2023 which corresponds to C.T.Case No.672 of 2023 which arises out of Gochhapada P.S.Case No.143 of 2023 now pending in the Court of the leaned S.D.J.M., Phulbani. 4. On perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that initially a complaint petition was filed making allegation under sections 294, 323, 493, 506 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of Opposite Party No.2 which was registered as Page 1 of 5. I.C.C.Case No.72 of 2023 on the basis of the order passed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Police investigated into the matter and accordingly F.I.R. was lodged at Gochhapada P.S. as P.S.Case No.143 of 2023 for commission of alleged offence punishable under sections 294, 323, 493,506 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that both the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 are major and they are capable of taking their own decision. He further submitted that due to misunderstanding between the two, the present case has been lodged at the instance of Opposite Party No.2 implicating the Petitioner as accused. He further contended that the matter has been amicably settled and that the informant does not want to proceed further in the case. He further contended that the alleged offences are not crime against society and that they do not want to proceed further in the matter as the matter has already been compromised and the parties are living peacefully in the locality. 6. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand supported the submissions of the leaned counsel for the Petitioner. Referring to the joint affidavit filed by the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2, learned counsel for the informant contended that the informant-victim is aged about 24 years and that there was consensual relationship between both the parties. He further contended that the victim is a major girl and before keeping physical relation with the Petitioner she fully knew that the Petitioner is a Page 2 of 5. married person. He further submitted that the matter has been amicably settled and the informant does not want to proceed further. He further submitted that the informant has no objection if the entire criminal proceeding is quashed. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State objected to the quashing of the criminal proceeding as the allegations made in the F.I.R. are serious in nature. He further submitted that taking into consideration the seriousness and gravity of the allegation and the fact that the alleged offence is a crime against the society, this Court may not exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under section 528 BNSS. On such ground learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State contended that the CRLMC application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 8. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, on a close scrutiny of the allegation made in the F.I.R. as well as upon on a careful scrutiny of the joint affidavit filed by the parties, this Court observes that the allegation made in the F.I.R. is by a consenting adult party. Moreover in joint Affidavit, the informant-Opposite Party No.2 has categorically sated that she kept consensual relationship with the Petitioner knowing fully well that the Petitioner is a married man. It was also contended by the informant’s counsel that the matter has been amicably settled in view of the joint affidavit filed before this Court. Page 3 of 5. 9. A copy of the joint affidavit has also been served on the learned State Counsel. Learned counsel for the State obtained instruction from the I.I.C. of the concerned Police Station pursuant to the order passed by this Court. On perusal of the instruction, it appears that the I.I.C. on enquiry found that the matter has been amicably resolved and that the parties do not want to proceed with the criminal proceeding. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no doubt that the informant does not want to proceed further in the present criminal misc.case application. 10. The next question which is to be decided by this Court is, as to whether the proceeding is to be quashed taking into consideration the allegations made in the F.I.R. This Court examined the allegation made in the F.I.R. No doubt the same is serious in nature and the informant-Opposite Party No.2 is a consensual party and such fact has been candidly admitted by the informant in his joint affidavit filed by the informant in Court. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that since the informant, who is a consensual party is not interested to proceed with the criminal proceeding, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue further would cause wastage of valuable time of the trial court. Moreover, in a case of this nature the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court, in the larger interest of justice, is inclined to quash the criminal proceeding. Accordingly, criminal proceeding in C.T.Case No.672 of 2023 arising out of Gochhapada P.S.Case No.143 of 2023 Page 4 of 5. pending in the file of the leaned S.D.J.M., Phulbani is hereby quashed. 11. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Aug-2025 18:53:55