Advocates:
['CHHABI BEHERA', '', 'S N SAHU', 'S K SAHU']

Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.1996 of 2022

Dibya Ranjan Mohanty

&.

Petitioner

Mr. C. Behera, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha and Another

&.

Opposite Parties

Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC

Mr. J.K. Ray, Advocate for O.P.No.2

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order

No.

ORDER

19.09.2022

01.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the

petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case

No.895 of 2020 corresponding to Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.303

of 2020 pending before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur

on the grounds stated therein.

3.

Perused the copy of the FIR and also charge sheet under

Annexure-2 series.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties

reached at a compromise and therefore, considering the nature of

allegations and circumstances leading to the lodging of FIR, the

criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.895 of 2020 should be

quashed in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the opposite

Page 2 of 3

party No.2 is present in Court and claimed about the alleged

compromise between the parties.

5.

The petitioner and opposite party No.2 are present in

Court today in person. On being asked, opposite party No.2

claimed about the settlement/compromise between her and the

petitioner and affidavit sworn by opposite party No.2 is also filed

and the same is perused by the Court. In the said affidavit, opposite

party No.2 stated that there has been a amicable settlement

between her and the petitioner due to the intervention of the local

gentlemen and expressed her no objection in the event the criminal

proceeding is quashed.

6.

Learned counsel for the State submits that one of the

offences involved is under Section 376 IPC and therefore, the

criminal proceeding should not be quashed in view of the restriction

imposed by the Apex Court in the number of decisions.

7.

The Court perused the FIR and its contents. In fact, from

the FIR, the Court finds that the parties were known to each other

but under some usual circumstances developed relationship which

was though objected by opposite party No.2. The opposite party

No.2 finally lodged the FIR whereupon Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case

No.303 of 2020 was registered. The Court is of the view that

though in decisions of the Supreme Court, it is held that inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C should not be exercised when

the offences are grievous in nature like rape, murder and dacoity or

offences of similar kind but then the cases of the present nature

should be treated differently where the parties have had

acquaintance and in a relationship but finally the FIR lodged alleging

rape. This Court is of the humble opinion that under such

circumstances and where there is a settlement reached at between

the parties, quashing of the proceeding in exercise of inherent

Page 3 of 3

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be allowed unless a

special case is made out for a departure. In other words, even

though an offence under Section 376 IPC is alleged, in peculiar facts

and circumstances like the case of the present nature, such filing of

charge sheet for such an offence should not stand as a bar for the

Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction. So considering the

affidavit filed by opposite party No.2 and her presence before the

Court today and realizing that she has already married elsewhere in

the meantime and leading a happy conjugal life, the Court is of the

view that the criminal proceeding which is pending before the

lea