Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 4308 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). Ajit Kumar Mahanta …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Anr …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Milan Kumar Kanungo, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Sidhartha Das, Adv.. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC Mr. Sitikant Mishra, Adv. (for O.P.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-23.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-15.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, in the present petition, has assailed the illegal and arbitrary implication of the Petitioner in connection with Bolani P.s. Case no. 128 of 2025 corresponding to J.J.C. Case No. 79 of 2025 and Special Case No. 96 of 2025, presently pending before the Court of Special Judge-cum-District and Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, and has prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. as well as consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom. It is pertinent to state that a bare perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R. would reveal that the same do not Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 2 disclose the commission of any prima facie offence against the Petitioner, nor do not they contain any specific overt act connecting the Petitioner with the alleged occurrence. The continuation of the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner, in the absence of the foundational materials constituting the alleged offence, amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 24.09.2025, the complainant Bhumi Mahanta, aged about 20 years, appeared before the P.S. and lodged a written report alleging, inter alia, that she had been acquainted with the present Petitioner for a considerable period of time. (ii) Initially, the relationship between them was cordial and friendly in nature; however, with the passage of time, the acquaintance gradually developed into an intimate love relationship. It was further alleged that during the subsistence of such relationship’ the Petitioner had assured and promised the complainant that he would marry her in future. (iii) That, during the first week of September 2023, the Petitioner allegedly requested the complainant to accompany him on a tour to Puri. Reposing trust and confidence in the assurances extended by the Petitioner, the complainant accompanied him to Puri by train. It is alleged that after, reaching Puri, both of them stayed in Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 3 a hotel by booking a room therein, where they established physical relations. (iv) It is further alleged that thereafter, on several subsequent occasions, they again visited Puri together and continued to maintain physical intimacy, during which the Petitioner repeatedly assured the complainant that he would marry her in future. (v) Subsequently, the family members of the complainant as well as the family members of the Petitioner came to know about the relationship existing between them. It is alleged that thereafter, due to mounting pressure and objection from his family members, the Petitioner refused to solemnize marriage with the complainant despite the earlier assurance allegedly given by him. Being aggrieved by such refusal, the complainant ultimately approached the Police Station and lodged the present F.I.R. against the Petitioner. (vi) That, it is an admitted position that both the Petitioner as well as the Opposite Party/Complainant Here, both the Petitioner and the Opp. Party are aged about 20years at the time of registration of the F.I.R. i.e. dated on 20.09.2025. thus, both of them were legally competent to understand the nature and consequences of their acts and conduct during the subsistence of their relationship. (vii) Thereafter, subsequently, an amicable settlement and compromise was arrived at between the victim and the Petitioner, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 4 wherein both parties mutually resolved to solemnize their marriage. It is submitted that, by the said time, both the Petitioner and the victim had attained majority and, acting out of their free will and consent, have since married each other. In furtherance of such settlement, the victim/complainant has also sworn and executed a compromise affidavit dated 09.10.2025 affirming the factum of compromise and expressing her no-objection with regard to the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present CRLMC Application seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The Petitioner submits that the present petition arises out of the allegations levelled against him in connection with the Bolani P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025 corresponding to J.J.C. No. 79/2025 and Special Case No. 96/2025 before the court below. (ii) The Petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction, inter alia, seeking quashing of the F.I.R. as well as the entire consequential criminal proceedings initiated against him, on the ground that the allegations made in the F.I.R., even at their face value, do not constitute the commission of nay cognizance Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 5 offence against the Petitioner and continuation of the proceeding would amount of the process of law. (iii) The Petitioner has, inter alia, assailed the initiation and continuance of the impugned criminal proceeding and has approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him, intending that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are inherently improbable, devoid of the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offences, and that continuation of such proceeding would amount to gross misuse and abuse of the process of Court. (iv) The Petitioner further submits that a plain reading of the contents of the F.I.R., the surrounding circumstances, as well as the statements made by the complainant herself, would clearly demonstrate that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and continued over a considerable period of time out of their own free will and volition. (v) It is contended that three was no element of coercion, deceit or criminal intent attributable to the present Petitioner at any point of time. The allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not satisfy the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offence and, as such, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner would be wholly unjustified and unsustainable in the eye of law. (vi) The Petitioner contents that both the Petitioner and the Opp. Party No.2 were of nearly the same age and were involved in a Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 6 consensual adolescent relationship out of their free will and volition. It is further submitted that, upon attaining majority, both parties voluntarily decided to solemnize their marriage and accordingly got married on 30.10.2025. since then, they have been residing together peacefully as husband and wife and are leading a harmonious life. (vii) The Petitioner, in order to buttress his submissions, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Ors.1, wherein it was held that: “This chasm between access and abuse is also mirrored in the misuse of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Amongst numerous examples, we may only refer to Rajesh Chaddha v. State of U.P.2, where this Court lamented the use of these Sections without specific instances or relevant details, among other cases. It is also to be stated though that no amount of judicial vigilance against misuse can alone bridge their ever-widening gap. The first line of defence lies with the Bar i.e, the body that translates grievance into action and is the gatekeeper of justice at the point of entry. When it comes to matters such as these, the responsibility of the advocate is profound- to examine the allegations with the detachment and necessary discretion ad to counsel restraint when grievance masks vengeance and to refuse participation in litigation when it can been seen that an ulterior motive is sought to be agitated under the guise if seeking protection of the law. It is only when the Bar takes a principled, proactive role, that the legislation intended as a shield can be stopped from being twisted into a weapon. A lawyer who tampers aggression with calm, reason and rationality, protects not only the opposing party from unwarranted harm but also 1 2026 INSC 47 2 2025 INSC 671 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 7 the client from the long-term consequences of frivolous or malicious litigation, including adverse orders, and judicial censure. By taking a principled stand, the Bar acts as a crucial filter, preventing the legal system from being overwhelmed by abuse masquerading as enforcement. Such self- regulation strengthens public faith in the profession, ensures that judicial time is reserved for genuine disputes, and reinforces the foundational idea that law is a means of justice, it is indispensable to it. When they do not do s, the chasm alluded to above widens. Society also must match institutional reform with moral awakening. The intent and object of these legislations must be at the forefront when a person wishes to lodge a complaint thereunder. The misuse of these laws is a mirror to the opportunities and self- centered view that pervades the application of law. It is only through discipline, integrity and courage that these problems can be remedied and rooted out. Any legislative amendment or judicial direction will remain lack-luster without this deeper change”. (viii) The Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner and the Opp. Party No.2, after attaining majority, have voluntarily solemnized their marriage and are presently living together happily as husband and wife. It is contended that, in view of the subsequent marriage between the parties and the amicable settlement arrived at between them, the continuance of the impugned criminal proceeding would serve no fruitful purpose and would merely amount to abuse of the process of Court. The Petitioner further submits that allowing the proceeding to continue would necessarily prolong the litigation, thereby causing undue harassment to both parties and adversely affecting their peaceful matrimonial and future prospects. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 8 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine. (i) The Opp. Party No.2, submits that, she and the present Petitioner were involved in a consensual relationship out of their own free will and volition, and during the subsistence of such relationship, both of them had mutually decided and assured each other that they would solemnize marriage after attaining majority. (ii) The Opp. Party No.2 further submits that, subsequently, both the families became aware of the relationship existing between her and the Petitioner. However, owing to immense pressure and objection from the family members of the Petitioner, he initially refused to solemnize the marriage despite the earlier assurances extended by him. Being aggrieved and emotionally distressed by such refusal, the Opp. Party No.2 approached the concerned Police Station and lodged the present F.I.R. against the Petitioner. (iii) The Opp. Party No.2 further submits that, after both of them attained majority, they voluntarily solemnized their marriage with each other on 30.10.2025, at which point of time both of them were aged about 20 years. It is further submitted that, although the marriage was entered into out of their own free will and consent, the same was opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that, under the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the Petitioner had not Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 9 attained the prescribed marriageable age for male person and, therefore, the marriage could not be treated as one strictly in consonance with the statutory requirements. (iv) The Opp. Party No.2 contents that she and the Petitioner have now solemnized their marriage and are residing together peacefully while continuing their matrimonial life happily. It is further submitted that, in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and their subsequent marriage, the Opposite Party No.2 has voluntarily sworn and executed an affidavit of com promise expressing her consent and no-objection for quashing of the present criminal proceeding. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 6. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is well settled. 7. It is further well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or sufficiency of the evidence. If the allegations in the complaint or charge-sheet disclose a prima facie case, the Court would ordinarily refrain from interfering and the matter should be left to be decided at trial. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 10 8. In the present case, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings as well as all subsequent proceedings on the basis of a settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties. 9. It is an admitted position that both parties had continued a consensual physical and sexual relationship with each other over a period of several years and on different occasions at Puri. Even if the allegations made by the prosecutrix are taken at their face value in their entirety, the same, by no stretch of imagination, would satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence of “rape” as alleged against the Petitioner, and any such interpretation would amount to an unwarranted and strained extension of the prosecution case. 10. It is further brought on record that the parties have, in the meantime, amicably resolved their disputes and have already entered into a marital relationship with each other, thereby rendering the continuation of the present criminal proceedings wholly unnecessary and devoid of practical significance. 11. The Supreme Court in Ayyub Malik v. State of Uttarakhand,3, wherein it has been held that: “6. It may be true that fleeing with a girl who is not of marriageable age and who is minor is an offence under law, however, the subsequent development of marriage between the two lovers and the fact that they have been merrily living would outweigh the need to take the alleged offence or the criminal proceedings to their logical end. In the fact situation like one obtained in the present one, continuation of criminal proceedings against appellant No.1 would become harassing and stand as an abuse of process of law.” 3 (2026) SCC Online SC 637 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 11 12. Similarly, in the case of in Dasari Srikanth v. State of Telangana,4, wherein it has been held that: “8. Since, the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger.” 13. The principal objection raised by the learned Government Counsel pertains to the age of the Petitioner, who is stated to be a minor in terms of the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Section 2(a) of the said Act defines a “child” to mean a person who, if male, has not completed twenty-one years of age, and if female, has not completed eighteen years of age. 14. However, in the present case, it is the admitted factual position that both parties entered into the marital relationship at the age of about 20 years. Notwithstanding the same, the Petitioner, being below the age of twenty-one years, would still fall within the statutory definition of a “child” under the said Act. Be that as it may, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the voluntary nature of the relationship and subsequent marriage between the parties, are required to be taken into consideration while appreciating the effect and applicability of the said statutory provisions in the present proceedings. 4 2024 SCC Online SC 936 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 12 15. It is pertinent to mention that as per Section 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 provides that a child marriage shall be voidable at the option of the contracting party who was a child at the time of the marriage. The said provision clearly stipulates that every child marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of the Act, shall not be void ab initio, but remains voidable at the instance of the party who was a child at the relevant time. In view of the statutory scheme, the marriage in question, even if falling within the definition of “child marriage” under the Act, continues to remain valid in law unless and until it is annulled by appropriate proceedings at the instance of the concerned contracting party. 16. In the present case, an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the victim and the Petitioner, and pursuant thereto, both parties are already residing together as husband and wife after solemnization of their marriage. In view of Section 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, such marriage cannot be treated as void ipso facto, but remains valid and subsisting unless annulled by a competent Court at the instance of the contracting party concerned. Accordingly, the marriage between the parties, having neither been challenged nor declared void by any competent forum, continues to hold the field and is also recognized in accordance with the prevailing Hindu customs and rites under which the marriage was solemnized. 17. It further appears that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would rather amount to an abuse Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 13 of the process of law. The disputes between the parties now stand resolved and they are presently leading their matrimonial life together. 18. Considering, the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to bring the present litigation to an end so as to enable the parties to continue their marital life peacefully, harmoniously, and without any further interference arising out of the pending criminal proceedings. V. CONCLUSION: 19. In view of the foregoing analysis, and after careful consideration of the material facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations, if taken at their face-value, and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any prima facie offence against the Petitioner, particularly in view of the subsequent marriage solemnized between the parties and the amicable settlement arrived at between them. 20. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed. 21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 15th May, 2026/