The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings requires exceptional circumstances; unproven allegations cannot justify termination at the outset, as factual disputes must be resolved during trial.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated against him. The Petitioner, against whom allegations have been levelled of having maintained a physical relationship with the informant/Opposite Party No.2 without her consent, seeks quashment of the First Information Report registered as Bhawanipatna Sadar P.S. Case No.473 of 2025 as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, presently pending as C.T. Case No.1007 of 2025 before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the continuation of the said criminal proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of law and warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. During the period between the years 2022 and 2023, while the informant/Opposite Party No.2 was serving as an Assistant Revenue Inspector (ARI) in the Tahasil Office at Golamunda, she came into acquaintance with the present Petitioner, who at the relevant time, was working as a Junior Revenue Assistant (JRA) in the same office. Owing to their professional proximity, they developed familiarity which, according to the prosecution version, subsequently matured into a romantic relationship between them. It is alleged that in the course of the said relationship, the Petitioner managed to obtain certain nude photographs of the informant–victim/Opposite Party No.2.

3. The further allegation in the F.I.R. is that the Petitioner thereafter misused the said photographs as a means of coercion and intimidation, and on the strength of such material compelled the informant to maintain physical relations with him on multiple occasions against her will. It is also alleged that the Petitioner repeatedly threatened the informant with dire consequences, including threats to her life, in the event she disclosed the said acts to anyone.

4. Being subjected to such intimidation and coercion, the informant eventually approached the local police station and lodged the present First Information Report, which culminated in registration of Bhawanipatna Sadar P.S. Case No.473 of 2025 and the consequential criminal proceeding. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the present CRLMC has been filed before this Court seeking quashment of the said F.I.R. and the criminal proceeding arising therefrom.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions, as borne out from the oral arguments and Written Note of Submissions:

i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the First Information Report in question has been lodged after an inordinate delay of nearly one year from the alleged breakdown of the relationship between the Petitioner and the informant. It is submitted that the materials on record would clearly indicate that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and had developed voluntarily while both were serving in the same office. According to the Petitioner, the relationship subsequently deteriorated and ultimately came to an end on account of certain personal misunderstandings between them. In such circumstances, it is argued that the allegations of rape and criminal intimidation levelled against the Petitioner are totally false and have been raised only as an afterthought.

ii) Learned counsel further submits that the informant, being aggrieved by the breakdown of the relationship, has attempted to give a criminal