The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3358 of 2025 Khirod Sahoo ..... Petitioner 1) State Of Odisha 2) Informant Represented By Adv. - Priya Ranjan Singh -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. - Siti Kanta Mishra CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 14.10.2025 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the application as well as the prayer the made therein. 3. By filing the present application the accused-petitioner seeks to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court said under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.136 of 2023 which arises out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.27 of 2023 now pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.(S) Cuttack on the ground that the matter has already been settled on compromise and that the informant does not want to proceed further in this case. Page 1 of 7. 4. The factual background leading to filing the F.I.R. at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2-informant is that on 09.03.2023, the informant-Opposite Party No.2 lodged an F.I.R. before the IIC Mahila P.S. Cuttack alleging that while she was working as a Nurse in L.V.Prasad Eye Hospital she was required to travel by “Mo Bus” from her residence for work. During such bus journey the informant came in contact to the present petitioner, thereafter a relationship developed between the two. Consequentially, their relationship became intimate and with a promise to marry with the petitioner took away Rs.2,00,000/- from the informant. It has also been stated that they were having a physical relationship which resulted in the informant becoming pregnant. Since the Petitioner delayed the marriage with the informant, the informant came to the house of the Petitioner and informed the aforesaid fact to the family members of the Petitioner. However, his family members avoided the issue. Thereafter, the informant was constrained to approach the Mahila P.S. Cuttack. Accordingly, the present F.I.R. has been registered for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 493, 417, 420, 506 I.P.C. after registration of the F.I.R. the investigation convince. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the relationship between the petitioner and the informant was consensual. He further submitted that during their travel on “Mo Bus” they had developed an intimate relationship. However, the marriage between the two could not be Page 2 of 7. materialised. As a result of which the informant had initially lodged this F.I.R. He further contended that in the meantime matter has been amicably resolved and that the Petitioner and the informant have arrived at a compromise and in view of the terms of the settlement the informant has agreed not to proceed further in the present criminal case. In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the entire criminal proceeding be quashed as the ultimate chance of conviction is bleak. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant on the other hand supported the stand taken by the learned counsel for the Petitioner it also referred to the affidavit filed by the Informant which has been filed along with this application and marked as Annexure-3. Referring to the aforesaid application, learned counsel for the Informant contended that the matter has been amicably settled with the intervention of the well-wishers and that the informant does not want to proceed further in this case. He further submitted that although after completion of the investigation the charge sheet has been filed against the Petitioner, however, the informant does not wish proceed further in this case and that informant will have no objection in the event the entire criminal proceeding quashed. It has also stated in the affidavit that earlier the informant has already married to one Sunakar Swain on 26th March, 2012 and that she has been blessed with a girl child who is aged about seven years and that due to matrimonial dispute she had left her husband’s house and Page 3 of 7. at the moment she is self-employed as a Staff Nurse in L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital, Bhubaneswar. She has also categorically admitted about the love relationship with the Petitioner. In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the Informant submitted that he will have no objection in the event the entire criminal proceeding is quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand produced a copy of instruction provided by the IIC Mahila PS, Cuttack UPD. Referring to instruction dated 26.09.2025 learned counsel for the State submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court he had obtained instruction from the concerned IIC and that IIC in her instruction has categorically stated that the victim was summoned to the police station and an enquiry was conducted. The victim lady has categorically stated before the IIC Mahila P.S. that she does not want to proceed further in the present case as the matter has already been compromised between the Petitioner and the Informant. Further, the IIC Mahila P.S. was requested to withdraw the case at the instance of the informant. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the affidavit filed before this Court at Annexure-3 in the name of the Informant is genuine. She also submitted that the fact with regard to the compromise of the dispute between the Petitioner and Informant in also genuine. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel for the State contended that he will have no objection in the event this Court passes any order deemed proper in the larger interests of justice. Page 4 of 7. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, further taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the informant and the affidavit filed by the at the instance of the informant as well as the instruction of the IIC Mahila P.S. dated 26.09.2025, this Court observes that although initially the case was registered for commission of an offence under Section 493, 417, 420, 506 of the I.P.C., however, subsequently both the petitioner and the informant have agreed to resolve the dispute amicably and they have arrived at a compromise. Pursuant to such compromise, the informant does not want to proceed further in the present criminal case. On perusal of the record, this court found that the informant is a qualified lady, who is working as a Staff Nurse in L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital. It also appears that earlier she was married to another person and due to the disturbance in her matrimonial life she had left her in-laws house. In the meantime, she had development a love relationship with the Petitioner while they were travelling together in a bus to their respective office work. Eventually, they had physical relationship. Since the Petitioner had promised to marry with the informant and such promise could not be fulfilled, the informant had lodged the F.I.R. before the Mahila P.S. 9. On a careful analysis of the allegation made in the F.I.R., this Court observes that the relationship between the Petitioner and the informant developed on the basis of the mutual attraction Page 5 of 7. and love while they were travelling together on a bus to their respective places of work. It also appears that initially there was no promise to marry or that the informant has anywhere alleged that the Petitioner had kept physical relationship forcibly. On the contrary, the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of the informant- victim clearly reveals that a love relationship developed between the two over period of time. Therefore, the initial foundation is based on a love relationship between the two although the same could not culminate in a marriage between the Petitioner and the informant. This Court on a close scrutiny of the stand taken by the informant before this Court through her counsel as well as the affidavit filed before this Court supported by a report of the IIC Mahila P.S. is of the view that the informant does not want to proceed further in the present criminal case. Therefore, there is every likelihood that she might support the prosecution case and lead evidence in that regard. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that sending the matter for trial would only lead to wastage of valuable judicial time and that the ultimate chance of in the present matter in bleak conviction. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that sending the mater for trial would be only be an abuse of the process of law. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual position and on a careful examination of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the relationship between the Petitioner and the Informant was consensual. As a result of the aforesaid Page 6 of 7. relationship, the informant became pregnant, however, it was a conscious decision on the part of the informant to have physical relationship with the Petitioner which eventually led to pregnancy of the informant. Therefore, the blame cannot be on the petitioner alone. In any event since the informant does not want to further proceed in this case and that the matter has been settled on a compromise, this Court is of the considered view that allowing further proceeding to continue in the present case would definitely be an abuse of the process of law and that the same is not in the interest of the Parties as well as in the interest of justice. Moreover, this Court is of the view that factual background of the present case falls within rarest of the rare case were this Court can exercise its inherent power to bring an end to the proceeding by quashing the entire criminal proceeding. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to quash the entire criminal proceeding in the larger interest of justice and to present the abuse of the process of law. The criminal proceeding arising out of G.R. Case No.136 of 2023 which corresponds to Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.27 of 2023 is hereby quashed. 11. Accordingly, the CRLMC application stands allowed. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 7 of 7. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 17-Oct-2025 10:46:00