The High Court
Case Details
AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3541 of 2023 Subhendu Sekhar Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. Uma Charan Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa and another …. Opp. Parties Ms. Siva Mohanty, ASC For O.P. No.1 Mr. Anupam Rath, Advocate for O.P. No.2 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 12.09.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Angul Sadar P.S. Case No.40 of 2023 corresponding to C.T.(S) Case No.118 of 2023. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The background facts of the case are that on 06.02.2023, Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a written FIR with the I.I.C., Sadar P.S., Angul, alleging therein that while she and the Petitioner were pursuing their Engineering Degree in the year 2011, a friendship developed between them through mobile phone. During their study period, the Petitioner once established physical relations with Opposite Party No. 2 at Sambalpur under false pretext of marriage. CRLMC No. 3541 of 2023 Page 1 of 12 After completion of their Engineering studies, the Petitioner went to Delhi for higher studies, while Opposite Party No. 2 returned to her native village. On 01.05.2015, at the instance of her parents,
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Party No. 2 married one Sri Bikramananda Mohanty of Azimabad, under Sahadevakhunta P.S., in the district of Balasore. However, about a week after the marriage, her husband came to know about her prior relationship with the Petitioner, which led to matrimonial discord. Consequently, her husband filed a divorce suit before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, registered as C.P. No. 118 of 2021. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner again came into contact with Opposite Party No. 2 and, on further assurances of marriage, established physical relations with her on several occasions at different places, both within and outside Odisha, on about twelve occasions between 2019 and 2023. When Opposite Party No. 2 came to know that the Petitioner was going to marry someone else on 08.02.2023, she lodged the FIR. On the basis of her complaint, the I.I.C., Angul Sadar P.S., registered P.S. Case No. 40 dated 06.02.2023 under Sections 376(2)(n)/506 of the Indian Penal Code and took up investigation. During investigation, the Petitioner was arrested and remained in custody until 23.06.2023. Opposite Party No. 2 also volunteered her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC, Angul, marked as Annexure-2. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet under Sections 376(2)(n)/506 IPC. The learned trial court took cognizance of the offences, whereafter the Petitioner moved an CRLMC No. 3541 of 2023 Page 2 of 12 application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The learned court, having heard the parties, was pleased to reject the said application. Subsequently, with the intervention of gentlemen, the matter was compromised between the parties, and a joint affidavit was filed, wherein Opposite Party No. 2, the victim, expressed her willingness not to proceed against the Petitioner in C.T.(S) Case No. 118 of 2023 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul. 3. Learned counsel for the both the Parties i.e. the Petitioner as well as the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the affidavit may be considered in the light of the decision reported in the matter of Madhukar vs. State of Maharashstra, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 710, so also the matter decided in Mukesh Kumar Sahoo vs. State of Odisha, passed in CRLMC No.1549 of 2024, by the coordinate Bench of this Court and the proceeding may be quashed pursuant to such joint compromise. 4. Perusal of the case record reveals that the allegations made in the complaint at the very inception coupled with the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., disclosed substantial material to implicate the Petitioner under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC reads as follows:- “376. Punishment for rape.-(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be CRLMC No. 3541 of 2023 Page 3 of 12 less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever,- (a) being a police officer, commits rape- (i) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or (ii) in the premises of any station house; or (iii) on a woman in such police officer's custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or (b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or (c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or (d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or children's institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or (e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or (f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or (g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or (h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or CRLMC No. 3541 of 2023 Page 4 of 12 (i) commits rape on a woman when she is under sixteen years of age; or (j) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or (k) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or (l) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or (m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or (n) commits rape repeatedly on woman,” the same 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhukar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 710, while quashing the proceeding in connection with the matter relating to the offence under Section 376 of the IPC held as follows:- “5. It is brought to our attention that both parties have categorically taken the stand before this Court that they have resovled their disputes amicably and are desirous of moving on with their lives. The complainant in the 2nd FIR, now married and residing with her husband, has expressed that continuation of the prosecution would cause further disruption in her personal life and that she has no wish to support the charges or pursue the matter any further. 6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not CRLMC No. 3541 of 2023 Page 5 of 12 constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.” 6. In the matter of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “48. The question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the G crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language 49. suggests, saves the inherent power of.the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, 'nothing in this Code' which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. ××× 51. In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in to prevent course of administration of continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is justice or CRLMC No. 3541 of 2023 Page 6 of 12 founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedituret id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is wheneveranything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter G of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection. ××× 53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. ××× The position that emerges from the above 57. discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to CRLMC No. 3541 of 2023 Page 7 of 12 the secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled facts and their dispute would depend on circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the C offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the CRLMC No. 3541 of 2023 Page 8 of 12 criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the allegation in the present case relates to the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, which, by its very nature, is regarded as grave and heinous. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhukar (supra), while exercising its inherent powers, quashed the proceedings in a case involving Section 376 IPC. However, the Court did so after carefully assessing the peculiar facts of that case, where it found that the complaint itself was essentially a reactionary step taken by the prosecutrix in the backdrop of her personal circumstances. The Court has further recognised that ordinarily, offences of such character cannot be quashed merely on the basis of settlement between the parties, as they have serious implications not only for the victim but also for society at large. The offence of rape, unlike disputes rooted in civil or matrimonial transactions, involves an element of public wrong that transcends the confines of individual grievance. Therefore, while the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is wide, the exercise of such power in respect of allegations of sexual assault calls for extreme caution, as quashing of proceedings in such matters cannot be permitted lightly without undermining the gravity with which the law treats the offence. Thus, the decision in Madhukar (supra) cannot be read as laying down a blanket proposition; rather, it underscores that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with CRLMC No. 3541 of 2023 Page 9 of 12 extreme circumspection and only in exceptional situations such an outcome cannot be treated as a rule. 8. If quashment of proceedings under Section 376 IPC were to be routinely permitted on the mere production of a joint affidavit, it would inevitably open the floodgates to abuse. Victims, especially women from vulnerable socio-economic backgrounds, could be subjected to immense pressure whether familial, social, or financial to retract their complaints, thereby frustrating the very object of the law designed to safeguard their bodily integrity and dignity. Unlike disputes that arise out of commercial, financial, or matrimonial transactions, allegations of rape embody a wrong that transcends private boundaries and impacts society at large. The High Court, therefore, cannot, on the face of a settlement, be assured of its genuineness or voluntariness. As emphasised in Gian Singh (supra), quashment on settlement is not synonymous with compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C.; the two are conceptually distinct and operate in separate spheres. Compounding is statutorily confined to specific offences and strictly regulated, whereas quashment is an extraordinary discretionary power meant to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. Treating serious offences like rape as if they fall within the domain of private compromise would dilute the gravity of the crime, embolden perpetrators to evade accountability through coercion or inducement, and risk trivialising the deterrent purpose of criminal law. Hence, any attempt to extend the principle of compromise to such cases must be approached with the greatest care, lest it results in erosion of public confidence in the justice delivery system. CRLMC No. 3541 of 2023 Page 10 of 12 9. In the present case, upon careful consideration of the materials on record as well as the compromise and the joint affidavit filed by the parties, this Court is not persuaded to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceeding. The offence alleged is of a grave nature under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, which, by settled law, cannot ordinarily be treated as a matter to be resolved through private settlement. The affidavit filed by the victim, though expressing her unwillingness to pursue the matter, does not inspire the confidence of this Court to hold that the ends of justice would be secured by terminating the prosecution at this stage. On the contrary, permitting such compromise to form the basis of quashment in cases of this nature would amount to trivialising the seriousness of the allegations and would set an unhealthy precedent. Consequently, this Court declines to accept the compromise and is not satisfied that the affidavit filed provides a justifiable ground to quash the criminal proceeding. 10. As a result, the compromise and affidavit filed by the parties do not inspire confidence for terminating the prosecution at this stage. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and shall not prejudice the rights of the parties in the trial. The Petitioner will be at liberty to urge all such grounds as available to him in law before the learned trial court, which shall consider the same strictly on its own merits and in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the CRLMC No. 3541 of 2023 Page 11 of 12 criminal proceeding in C.T.(S) Case No.118 of 2023 arising out of Angul Sadar P.S. Case No.40 of 2023, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul. 12. The CRLMC is hence dismissed. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 17-Sep-2025 17:19:15 CRLMC No. 3541 of 2023 Page 12 of 12