Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No. 3862 of 2022

Prasanta Kumar Mohanta and Another

&.

Petitioners

Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha and Another

&.

Opposite Parties

Mr. Sitikanta Mishra, ASC, OP No.1

None appears for OP No.2

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER

23.12.2022

02.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press

this petition in respect of petitioner No.1 as it has become

infructuous. So, the present order is confined to petitioner No.2

only.

3.

Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the behest of

the principal accused, namely, petitioner No.1 and petitioner no.2,

who is the father of the accused-petitioner No.1 for quashing of the

impugned order dated 15^th December, 2021 in connection C.T.

Special (POSCO) No.191 of 2019 arising out of Kaliapani P.S. Case

No.116 of 2019 pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions

Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur on the grounds stated therein.

4.

Perused the copy of the impugned order at Annexure-1 and

copy of the FIR as at Annexure-2.

Page 2 of 3

5.

It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner No.2 that

on the basis of the report lodged by the informant, the FIR was

lodged in Kaliapani P.S. Case No.116 of 2019 for commission of

offences under Sections 376(2)(n) & 506 IPC along with Section 6 of

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and in the

meantime, there has been a compromise between the parties and

considering the same, the criminal proceeding in C.T. Special

(POSCO) No.191 of 2019 should be quashed.

6.

Mr.S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the

State offers his strong objection for quashing of the impugned order

since the informant was a minor who is aged about 15 years at the

time the FIR was lodged. Considering the fact that the case

instituted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and as the victim is a

minor at the relevant point of time, the Court is not inclined to

exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the impugned order under

Annexure-1, which is absolutely as per and in accordance with law.

7.

At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioner No.2 submits

that since there is a compromise between both the sides, at least the

petitioner No.2 should be directed to surrender before the learned

court below and allow to go on bail.

8.

Considering the above facts and the as the Court is not

inclined to quash the impugned order under Annexure-1, it is of the

view that petitioner No.1 and the victim girl has been in a

relationship prior to the incident and the former developed

relationship with the latter on a false promise to marry her and

developed physical intimacy and thereafter he refused to marry and

since a compromise has been reached between the parties in the

meantime, this Court directs petitioner No.2 to surrender and be

released on bail subject to conditions.

9.

Accordingly, it is ordered.

Page 3 of 3

10.

In the result, the CRLMC stands disposed of with a direction

to petitioner No.2 to surrender before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur on or before 13^th January, 2023 in

C.T. Special (POSCO) No.191 of 2019 arising out of Kaliapani P.S. Case

No.116 of 2019 and in the event he surrenders within the time

stipulated, the court below shall release him on bail with conditions as

deemed just and proper.

11.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik)

Judge

U.K.Sahoo