The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 07. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2473 of 2025 Santosh Pradhan ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Jyotirmoy Mohapatra Opp. Parties Represented By Adv. – U.C. Jena, A.S.C. M/s Sujit Kumar Swain, Ranjan Dungr, Adv. for O.P. No.2 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 24.10.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Nandankan P.S Case No.175 of 2022 which corresponds to G.R Case No.1320 of 2022 pending in the file of learned JMFC(O), Bhubaneswar. 4. The abovenoted case arises out of an F.I.R lodged before the Page 1 of 6. Nandankanan Police Station on 19.11.2022 at the instance of one Narayan Mishra, who happens to be the brother-in-law of the victim, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 363 of the I.P.C. 5. The F.I.R story, in brief, is that one Narayan Mishra, who happens to be the brother-in-law (sister’s husband) of the victim, lodged the F.I.R before the OIC, Nandankanan P.S., Bhubaneswar inter alia alleging that the cousin sister of his wife, who is aged about 16 years and was staying with them at their residence for the purpose of her studies, is missing since the morning. The missing person was a student of Maharshi Women’s College. In the morning, she had gone to attend the class by a city bus and had not returned since the evening. Thereafter, the F.I.R was lodged before the Nandankanan Police Station to trace out the missing victim- girl. Accordingly, Nandankanan P.S case No.175 dated 19.11.2022 was registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 363 of the I.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner and the victim were in a love relationship for long time. He further contended that the Petitioner had no physical relationship with the victim till she attained the age of majority. He further contended that since family members of the victim were not in favour of the marriage and at the relevant point of time, the victim was a minor, although they were interested to stay together and get married, they could not married. He further contended that after the victim-girl attained majority, the Petitioner and the victim- Opposite Party No.2 are married in the meantime and they are staying together as husband and wife and leading a happy conjugal Page 2 of 6. life. 7. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and contended that the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution as narrated in the F.I.R. He further contended that no case as alleged in the F.I.R is made out in view of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C by the learned magistrate. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since no case is made out on the basis of F.I.R allegation and that the allegation made in the F.I.R is falsified in view of the statement of the victim recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, the entire prosecution case is liable to be quashed in the larger interest of justice. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 also stated before this Court that although the victim was a minor at the time of registration of the F.I.R., however, being her cousin sister, she was staying with on her brother-in-law for the purpose of her studies. As a result, she had left the house without informing her sister. He further emphatically argued that the victim was never kidnapped by the Petitioner. Referring to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, learned counsel for the Victim also submitted that the further continuance of the present criminal proceeding would be against the interest of justice as the Petitioner and the victim- Opposite Party No.2 are now married and are living together as husband and wife. Page 3 of 6. 9. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 15.10.2025, the victim first appeared through virtual mode from the police station. However, due to technical problem, the victim could not be heard personally. Later on, the victim is produced by the I.O of the case in Court today. The victim, who is present in Court, stated before this Court that she was never kidnapped by the present Petitioner. She also admitted the fact that she had a love relationship with the Petitioner for a long time. She has also stated that she was never sexually abused by the Petitioner. She further stated before this Court that she has married the Petitioner in the meantime on attaining the age of majority and that at the moment she is staying at her matrimonial house and leading a happy conjugal life. The Victim prayed before this Court that the present criminal proceeding be terminated since it would be in the larger interest of both the Petitioner and the victim-Opposite Party No.2. 10. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the prayer made in the present application. He further submitted that the investigation is still on. Therefore, the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding at this juncture would not be in the larger interest of justice. Learned counsel for the State, on a query being put by this Court, stated that although the F.I.R was lodged in the year 2022, however, no charge sheet has been filed as of now. He further admitted that the F.I.R was lodged for alleged commission of crime under Section 363 of the IPC. Further, in view of the later development, learned counsel for the State also submitted that since the Petitioner and the victim-Opposite Party No.2 are married, staying together and are leading a happy conjugal life, he does not have any objection in the event this Court Page 4 of 6. passes any order which would be in the interest of justice. 11. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties as well as the victim, who is present in court in person, on being produced by the I.O., further taking note of the subsequent development and the fact that the victim by being present before this Court in person, has stated that she does not admit to the fact that she was either kidnapped or that she was subjected to any sexual harassment by stating the same before this Court in person which, such fact also gets corroboration from her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot be said that any offence is made out against the Petitioner either under the provisions of the POCSO Act or under Section 376 of the IPC. With regard to the offence alleged in the F.I.R i.e. for commission of an offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC, this Court is of the view that the same is also negated by the statement of the victim in Court today as well as before the learned Magistrate recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, on a wholesome reading of the entire material on record, on a close scrutiny of the case diary and taking into consideration the statement of the victim before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that no case can be said to have been made out against the present Petitioner. In such view of the matter further continuance of the present criminal proceeding would be an abuse of process of law and would not be in the larger interest of justice. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the present case falls within the exception of rarest of rare case, where this Court should exercise its inherent power to bring an end to the entire criminal proceeding. Therefore, in Page 5 of 6. exercise of such inherent power saved under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, this Court quashes the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Nandankan P.S Case No.175 of 2022 corresponding to G.R Case No.1320 of 2022. 12. Accordingly, the application stands allowed. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Oct-2025 17:28:43