IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
Binod Pandit @ Binod Kumar Pandit & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Odisha & Anr. - Opposite Parties
CRLMC No. 702 of 2024
Decided On : 13-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for quashing based on inherent jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners claim false implications and lack of evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court assesses the viability of criminal proceedings based on facts. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. consensual relationship negates criminality of allegations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court quashes fir and proceedings due to lack of evidence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioners have instituted the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking quashing of the FIR and the Criminal Proceedings arising out of P.S. Case No.408 of 2023, corresponding to C.T. Case No.1152 of 2023, pending before the learned J.M.F.C, Chandikhole.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 04.07.2023 at about 9:30P.M., one Barsharani Ojha submitted a written report before the I.I.C., Dharmasala Police Station. In the said report, she alleged that Petitioner No.1 had been in a love relationship with her for a considerable period of time. It was further alleged that they had gone to Puri together, where Petitioner No.1 promised to marry her. On the basis of such promise of marriage, Petitioner No.1 allegedly established physical relationship with the complainant on several occasions.
(ii) On 03.07.2023, the Petitioner No.1 allegedly informed the complainant over telephone that his marriage has been solemnized by his parents against his will. Thereafter, the Complainant went to the village of Petitioner No.1, where he allegedly denied having any love relationship her.
(iii) The Victim had left her matrimonial home and was residing at her parental house in village Odanga. She had instituted a divorce proceeding against her husband, which was subsequently allowed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur, and a decree of divorce was granted in her favour.
(iv) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, including that of the Victim. The Victim was sent for medical examination. Her wearing apparels and biological samples were seized and forwarded for chemical examination. The statement of the Victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate.
(v) Thereafter, the Petitioner No.1 was arrested and forwarded to judicial custody. Upon completion of investigation, the police found that the Petitioner and the Victim had been in a love relationship for a considerable period of time.
(vi) On the basis of the written report, Dharamasala P.S. Case No. 408 of 2023 was registered. Under the completion of investigation, the police submitted chargesheet on 30.11.2023 under Section 341, 294, 323, 493, 417, 354, 506 and 34 of I.P.C. against the Petitioner No.1. The co-accused persons, namely Petitioner No.2 to 5, were charge-sheeted under Section 341, 294, 323, 354, 506 and 34 of I.P.C.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Section 528 BNSS by filing the present CRLMC.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioners submits that he and his family members have been falsely implicated in the present case, though they have no involvement in the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the medical examination report of the victim does not reveal any signs and symptoms suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse, nor does it disclose any bodily injury indicative of the alleged forcible sexual assault.
(ii) The Petitioners further submits that the contents of F.I.R., on the basis of which the criminal proceedings has been initiated again
The court quashed the FIR and proceedings due to the consensual nature of the relationship, finding no prima facie evidence of any offence committed by the Petitioners.
The court established that consensual relationships, despite existing marriages, do not constitute criminal offences absent force or deception, allowing for quashing of wrongful prosecution.
A consensual relationship between adults who are fully aware of each other's marital status does not constitute an offense under the relevant laws, thereby quashing the related FIR.
The court ruled that a consensual relationship, despite marital status, does not constitute a criminal offense under applicable law, emphasizing mutual consent and awareness in all interactions.
The inherent powers of the court can quash criminal proceedings when the victim expresses no desire to proceed, especially following reconciliation and marriage, despite serious charges under IPC.
Rape, cheating and stalking – Criminal case cannot be quashed when there are serious factual disputes.
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 b....
FIR alleging rape on false marriage promise quashed where consensual adult relationship sours, complainant married and ineligible to remarry, no evidence of vitiated consent or initial deceit.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.