The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3471 of 2025 1) Kunmun Dwibedi 2) Monalisa Sarangi 3) Jayanta Kumar Sarangi ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Ananta Kumar Rout 1) State Of Odisha 2) Informant 3) Victim -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. –Mr. C.M.Singh, A.S.C. Mr.Chandrakant Khatua,Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Adv. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 18.11.2025 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the accused-Petitioners thereby invoking the inherent power of this Court under Sections 528 of the B.N.S.S.,2023 to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of T.R. Case No.68 of 2022 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Puri which corresponds to G.R. Case No.57 of 2022 and arises out of Kakatpur P.S. Case No.86 of 2022 which was registered for commission of an offence Page 1 of 8. punishable under Sections 363/ 366/ 341/ 342/ 376/ 34 of I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 4. The prosecution story in short is that an F.I.R. was lodged on 18.05.2022 at the instance of the mother of the victim namely, Rashmita Parida, before the Kaktpur P.S. alleging commission of a crime under Section 363 of the I.P.C. by unknown accused person. On plain reading of the F.I.R., it appears that the victim, who happens to be the daughter of the informant, was found missing from her village. At the time of occurrence the victim was aged about 17 years and 5 months. The victim was accompanying her mother to her mother’s parental house. While the victim was at her mother’s parental house, in the evening she was found missing. When the informant tried to contact to the victim by calling her mobile number, it was found to be switched off. Thereafter, the family members and relatives tried to locate the victim by making an extensive search. Eventually, the F.I.R. was lodged before the Kakatpur P.S. alleging commission of offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the victim and the Petitioner No.1 are known to each other since long. He further contended that they were in love relationship. Since the family members did not give their consent for marriage they decided to flee away. It was further contended that only with the consent of the victim the petitioner No.1 took her away and eventually after the victim attained the age of majority they got married. He further submitted that in the meantime they both are residing as husband and wife and leading a happy conjugal life. Page 2 of 8. 6. In view of the subsequent development and the fact that the victim and Petitioner No.1 are married and staying together as husband and wife, learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that no case under Section 376 I.P.C. or Section 6 POCSO is made out against the present Petitioner No.1. Further referring to the affidavit filed by the victim, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the victim, who is staying happily with the present petitioners, does not want to proceed further in the present criminal case. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the further continuance of the present criminal proceeding would be against interest of justice and the same is likely to cause disruption in their otherwise happy conjugal life. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners praised that in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court, in exercise of its inherent power, be released to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 7. Learned counsel for the Informant, while supporting the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, contended that both the Petitioner No.1 and the victim had a love relationship. He further submitted that the statement of the victim has been recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and her deposition has also been recorded in the
Legal Reasoning
meanwhile. It was categorically submitted by the learned counsel for the victim, in her deposition before learned trial court that she has clearly stated that she was in a love relationship with the Petitioner No.1 and that they both are now married and leading a happy conjugal life. It has also been stated that before their marriage the Petitioner No.1 did not keep any physical relationship Page 3 of 8. with the victim. As such, it was argued that no case under Section 376 is made out against the present Petitioners. 8. With regard to the age of the victim learned counsel for the victim-Opposite Party No.2 contended that she has already attained the age of majority and that they are married since 10th July, 2025. In support of such contention learned counsel for the victim referred to the certificate of marriage issued by the Marriage Officer, Mayurbhanj, a copy of which has already been filed before this Court. In view of the aforesaid factual position, learned counsel for the victim also stated before this Court that the further continuance of the present criminal proceeding would be an abuse of process of law and that the same will not be in the larger interest of justice. Hence, it was prayed that in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court in exercise of its inherent power ought to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as has been prayed in the application filed by the accused Petitioner No.1. He further contended that taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the allegation this Court should not entertain the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-Petitioner No.1. He further contended that although they are married and staying together, however the same does not absolve the petitioner of his criminal liability which had arisen at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for the State also contended that at the time of occurrence the victim was a minor and who was aged about 17 years 5 months. Thus, a case under the Page 4 of 8. provisions of POCSO Act is well made out against the present Petitioner No.1. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the application filed at the instance of the accused- Petitioners is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 10. On perusal of the record, it appears that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 14.10.2025 both the Petitioner as well as the victim appeared before this Court through virtual mode from their respective police stations. The victim who appeared before this Court on 23.10.2025 through virtual mode stated that her date of birth is 11.10.2004 as per her birth certificate and that at the time of occurrence she was a major girl. She further submitted that since she was found missing on the date of occurrence, the F.I.R. has been registered at the instance of the mother as informant. She further disclosed that she has married the Petitioner No.1 and both are leading a happy and peaceful conjugal life. The victim further contended before this Court that she does not want to proceed further in the present case as the continuance of the present case will cause disruption in their otherwise happy marital life. Accordingly, she prayed before this Court that the proceeding be quashed and she be allowed to continue a happy conjugal life with her husband i.e. accused-Petitioner No.1. 11. Similarly, the Petitioner No.1 was also present through virtual mode and stated before this Court that he has already married the victim. He further contended that they both were in a love relationship which was not accepted by their respective families. As a result, they both decided to run away and get Page 5 of 8. married. He further submitted that since they both are married and staying together as husband and wife and leading a happy conjugal life it would not be in the interest of justice to continue the present criminal proceeding. 12. After recording the statement of the Petitioner No.1 as well as the victim girl, this Court directed the victim to appear before the learned trial court on 10th November, 2025 for recording of her statement. On her appearance before the learned trial court, the learned trial court has recorded the statement of the victim, a copy of which has already been forwarded to this Court. On perusal of the statement recorded by the Magistrate which is at Flag-K to the brief, it appears that the victim girl has repeated the same story before the learned Magistrate i.e. she was in a love relationship with the Petitioner No.1 which was not known to the family members and that on 17.05.2022 without informing the family members they both fled away. Since she was found missing, the F.I.R. was registered at the instance of her mother. 13. After staying away for two days they informed the parents of the victim. Eventually, the victim was rescued by the police. In her statement, she has categorically stated that she fled away with the Petitioner No.1 without any influence or force. She further contended that she made a wrong statement before the police. She has also categorically denied having any kind of physical relationship with the Petitioner No.1 and that she has also admitted about her marriage with the Petitioner No.1 on 10.07.2025. At the moment, she is staying with the Petitioner No.1. So far the affidavit that was filed before this Court is concerned, the victim Page 6 of 8. has stated before the Magistrate that she had sworn the affidavit by remaining present before the Oath Commissioner of this Court and has also admitted about her statement before this Court through virtual mode on 23.10.2025. The statement of the victim which was recorded pursuant to the order of this Court has also been duly certified by the learned J.M.F.C. Cog-II, Puri by recorded her statement. 14. On a careful analysis of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, further on a close scrutiny of the background facts of the present case as well as the subsequent development and keeping in view the statement made by the victim before this Court as well as her deposition and the statement recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., this Court has no other option but to arrive at a conclusion that the victim had a love relationship with the Petitioner No.1. Moreover, it appears that they both fled away from the village with their consent. Further, taking into consideration, the statement of the victim that they had no physical relationship whatsoever prior to their marriage, this Court is of the view that it is difficult to come to conclusion that a case is made out against the Petitioner No.1 under Section 376 of I.P.C. or under any of the provisions of the POCSO Act. 15. No doubt, this Court is of the view that the offences alleged are very serious in nature and the same should not be encouraged in any manner whatsoever. However, taking into consideration, the subsequent development and the fact that both the Petitioner No.1 and victim have married in the meantime and are staying Page 7 of 8. together as husband and wife and leading a happy conjugal life, allowing the present criminal proceeding to continue further would definitely cause disruption in their martial life. 16. On a careful analysis of the entirety of the case, this Court is of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, unless this Court exercises its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to curtail the criminal proceeding, the same is likely cause disruption in the marital life of the Petitioner No.1 and the victim which would ultimately be against the larger interests of justice. Moreover, taking into consideration the fact that the relationship between the Petitioner No.1 and the victim is based on a love relationship, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner No.1, did something which is against the consent of the victim. As such this Court is of the view that the present case is a fit case where this Court can exercise its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding against the Petitioners in T.R. Case No.68 of 2022 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Puri which corresponds to G.R. Case No.57 of 2022 and arises out of Kakatpur P.S. Case No.86 of 2022 is hereby quashed.
Decision
17. Accordingly, the CRLMC application stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 20-Nov-2025 11:10:01 Page 8 of 8.