IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 1807 of 2024 Rahul Pradhan .... Petitioner(s) Mr. Susanta Kumar Lenka Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Sonak Misrha, ASC Mr. Achyutananda Pattnaik, Advocate for O.P No.2 CORAM: THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 29.01.2026 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in CT Case No.08 of 2020 vide Annexure-1 pending before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Phulbani. 3. The brief facts of the case, as alleged in the FIR, are that the petitioner and the informant were acquainted through telephonic communication. On 14.02.2020, the informant allegedly accompanied the petitioner to Bhubaneswar to work in a beauty parlour, and both resided together in a rented house at Salia Sahi, Ekamra Villa, Bhubaneswar. It is alleged that during such stay, the petitioner committed repeated sexual intercourse with the Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 30-Jan-2026 10:25:40 Signature Not Verified 2 informant forcibly and without her consent. The informant returned to her parental home on 15.03.2020 and did not disclose the alleged incident to anyone at that point of time. It is further alleged that on 29.05.2020, the petitioner called the informant outside her house, threatened and assaulted her. Thereafter, the informant disclosed the alleged incident to her parents, pursuant to which the FIR was lodged, giving rise to the present proceeding. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the informant were in a consensual relationship, that they have subsequently solemnized their marriage and are living together with a child born out of the wedlock, and that the dispute stands settled, as evidenced by a joint affidavit filed by both the parties. 5. This Court has perused the joint affidavit filed by the parties. The relevant contents thereof are extracted hereunder: — “1. That in the above-mentioned case, allegations have been made under Sections 376(3),. 376(2)(n), 506, 363 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. That the Opposite Party No.2 is the victim in the present case, and the entire incident arose out of a love relationship between the accused-petitioner and Opposite Party No.2. At the time of the alleged occurrence, Opposite Party No.2 had already attained the age of majority. Out of their wedlock Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 30-Jan-2026 10:25:40 Signature Not Verified 3 they have blessed a girl child, and both are presently leading a happy conjugal life as husband and wife. 3. That Opposite Party No.2 does not wish to proceed with the prosecution, as the conviction of the petitioner would have devastating effect on the marital life of both parties. 4. That since the petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 are already living together as husband and wife, with their marital relationship being accepted and supported by their parents, any continuation of the criminal trial which may result in conviction would seriously jeopardize their future. 5. That Opposite Party No.2 has no objection if the aforesaid P.S./C.T. case is quashed. Quashing the proceeding will be in the best interest of their future and the welfare of their newly established conjugal life. Therefore, for the ends of justice, the criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed for the betterment of both parties. 6. That the facts stated above are true to the best of our knowledge belief and information.” 6. Having perused the joint affidavit by the parties, this court is of the view that the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is well settled. Such power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. At the same time, it is equally settled that the High Court, in appropriate Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 30-Jan-2026 10:25:40 Signature Not Verified 4 cases, is not powerless to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, if the facts and circumstances so warrant and if continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 7. It is also trite that offences under the POCSO Act are grave in nature and ordinarily ought not to be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. However, the power under Section 482 CrPC is not to be exercised on the basis of the label of the offence alone, but on a holistic consideration of the facts of each case, the nature of the dispute, the stage of the proceedings, and the consequences of allowing the prosecution to continue. 8. In the present case, the joint affidavit reveals that Opposite Party No.2 asserts that she had attained the age of majority at the time of the alleged occurrence and that the relationship between the parties was consensual. The parties have subsequently married, are living together peacefully, and have a child born out of the wedlock. Opposite Party No.2 has expressed her unequivocal unwillingness to support the prosecution. This Court has also ensured the personal presence of the petitioner and the informant as well as victim and all are in unison stated that they don’t want to unnecessarily prolong the criminal proceedings 9. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the possibility of the prosecution culminating in a conviction is extremely remote. Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 30-Jan-2026 10:25:40 Signature Not Verified 5 Continuation of the criminal proceeding, despite the complete settlement between the parties and their settled matrimonial life, would only result in unnecessary harassment, prolongation of litigation, and wastage of valuable judicial time, without serving any meaningful purpose. 10. This Court is conscious of the fact that quashing of criminal proceedings should not be permitted to defeat the object of special statutes. However, the peculiar facts of the present case, coupled with the unequivocal stand of the victim-informant and the subsequent developments, persuade this Court to hold that the ends of justice would be better served by putting an end to the criminal proceeding rather than allowing it to continue mechanically. 11. This Court clarifies that the present order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent in cases involving allegations under the POCSO Act where such mitigating circumstances are absent. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. 13. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and upon careful perusal of the joint affidavit filed by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 30-Jan-2026 10:25:40 Signature Not Verified 6 dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. In the circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceeding at this stage would serve no useful or meaningful purpose and would only result in unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings and avoidable burden on the docket of the Court. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the CRLMC stands allowed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No. 08 of 2020/Annexure-1, pending before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Phulbani, is hereby quashed. 15. The CRLMC is disposed of, accordingly. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali