p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.5419 of 2025 Suryakanta Pattnaik …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC Mr. Bibhuti Ranjan Mohanty, Adv. Mr. M.K. Swain, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 17.02.2026 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the criminal proceeding as per the provision under the POCSO Act is instituted, has prayed for quashing of the said criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.2 of 2025 arising out of Kudanagari P.S Case No.325 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Kendrapara. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner and the girl for whom the Petitioner has been booked for the above noted offences, are presently leading a peaceful conjugal life. He further contends that at the time of lodging of the F.I.R the girl was major. In Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Feb-2026 18:06:39 Signature Not Verified p. 2 order to prove the said fact learned counsel for the Petitioner also draws the attention of this Court to the birth certificate of the girl who is present in Court today along with her husband/Petitioner and father who had lodged the F.I.R in question. He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC. 5. It is well settled that although the offences under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under the POCSO Act are non-compoundable, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is not denuded of power to quash the criminal proceeding where the dispute is essentially private and matrimonial in nature and the parties have voluntarily arrived at a genuine and complete settlement. The underlying object of such exercise is to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Where the continuation of the criminal proceeding, despite an amicable settlement, would serve no fruitful purpose and would only perpetuate bitterness between the parties, the High Court would be justified in interdicting the prosecution, particularly when the informant himself has unequivocally expressed his consent for such quashing. 6. Considering the contents of the joint affidavit filed by the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2/ informant – father of the girl and following the ratio laid down by the Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Feb-2026 18:06:39 Signature Not Verified p. 3 Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another1, and two other reported cases of this Court in Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four others v. State of Orissa and four others2, and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and another –vrs.- State of Orissa and Another3, wherein this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in allowing such proceedings to continue the criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case as it will only lead to abuse the process of law. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations, this Court finds that the girl for whom her father/Opposite Party No.2 had lodged the F.I.R in question, was major at the time of occurrence. Hence, the offences under the POCSO Act against the Petitioner/husband of the said girl is not made out. This Court, therefore, allows the present application. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide G.R. Case No.2 of 2025 arising out of Kudanagari P.S. Case No.325 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned A.D.J-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Kendrapara stands quashed. 8. At this juncture, this Court also directs the Petitioner to file an undertaking before I.I.C, Kudanagari Police Station, 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 2014 (II) OLR 29 3 2014 (II) OLR 452 Designation: Personal Assistant p. 4 Kendrapara stating therein that he will never torture his wife and take care of her. 9. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of. 10. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant