The High Court cannot quash rape charges based solely on victim settlement; such matters require careful scrutiny to uphold the seriousness of the crime and protect public interest.

JUDGMENT :

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. CaseNo.40 of 2023 corresponding to C.T.(S) Case No.118 of 2023.

2. 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. 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, 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 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. Punishm