Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 606 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). Ravi Kumar …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Anr …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC, Mr. A.P. Bose, Adv (for O.P. No.2). CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-16.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-22.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, by way of the present petition, has prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. as well as entire criminal proceeding in connection with Cuttack Mahaila P.S. Case No. 126 dated 06.08.2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 450 of 2024 pending before the learned SDJM(S), Cuttack, instituted for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n)/294/506/34 of I.P.C. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 2 (i) The petitioner, by way of the present petition, has prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 126 dated 06.08.2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 450 of 2024 pending before the learned SDJM(S), Cuttack, instituted for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 294,506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) In January, 2024, the Informant allegedly requested the Petitioner to marry her, whereupon the Petitioner is stated to have assured her that he would solemnize the marriage after discussing the matter with his parents. However, according to the Informant, the Petitioner subsequently blocked her from all social media platforms as well as from his contact numbers in or about June, 2024. It is further alleged that when the Informant contacted the mother of the Petitioner, she came to know that another girl had already been selected for the Petitioner’s marriage. The Informant has also alleged that upon her attempting to contact the Petitioner thereafter, his mother threatened to make certain photographs viral on social media platforms. (iii) It is stated that the Petitioner had already solemnized marriage in accordance with Hindu rites and customs on 17.11.2023, and the said marriage was subsequently registered before the competent Marriage Authority on 13.08.2024. (iv) It is further stated that prior to approaching the Police Authorities, the Informant had allegedly sent an e-mail to the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 3 Petitioner on 23.07.2024, demanding that he marry her, failing which she would initiate legal proceedings against him and his family members. It is also stated that the relatives of the Informant had, on two occasions, visited the residence of the Petitioner’s maternal grandfather at Neora, Patna, with a proposal for marriage, and upon refusal thereof, allegedly extended threats of dire consequences to the Petitioner, his maternal grandfather, and other family members. (v) Subsequently, on 03.08.2024 at about 8:20 P.M., the Informant appeared before the Cuttack Mahila Police Station and submitted a written report, on the basis of which Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 126 dated 03.08.2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 450 of 2024, was registered for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereafter investigation was duly taken up by the Police Authorities. (vi) The Petitioner was arrested by the Investigating Officer on 20.11.2024 from his native place in the State of Bihar and was thereafter produced before the Court of the learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Danapur, Patna, which granted 72 hours’ transit remand in favour of the Investigating Agency. Subsequently, the Petitioner was forwarded to the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack on 23.11.2024, whereupon his application for bail was rejected and he was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Court of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 4 Cuttack seeking bail, and was ultimately enlarged on bail by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in BLAPL No. 1428 of 2024. (vii) Consequently, the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. in connection with Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 126 dated 06.08.2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 450 of 2024 pending before the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack, instituted for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom. 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 contends that the present case is a classic instance wherein a long-standing consensual relationship between two conscious and consenting adults has subsequently been sought to be given the colour of a criminal offence. It is submitted that the allegations, when examined in their entirety, disclose a voluntary relationship between the parties and do not prima facie satisfy the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offences. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 5 (ii) It is contended that both the Informant and the Petitioner were pursuing higher education at KIIT University and were approximately 28 years of age at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. The Petitioner submits that the relationship between the parties commenced as far back as in the year 2015, pursuant to a proposal of love made by the Petitioner and voluntarily accepted by the Informant, and that the parties thereafter continued in a consensual relationship over a considerable period of time. (iii) It is further submitted that, as per the specific averments and admissions made by the Informant herself, physical relations between the parties were first established on Valentine’s Day, i.e., on 14.02.2018. The Petitioner contends that thereafter the parties continued to share frequent physical intimacy for a prolonged period of nearly six years, extending up to the year 2023, allegedly on the assurance of marriage, without the Informant lodging any complaint or grievance at any point of time during the subsistence of the relationship. (iv) The Petitioner submits that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged merely as an afterthought and as a consequence of the deterioration of the personal relationship between the parties. It is contended that the Informant approached the Police Authorities only after she insisted upon marriage in January, 2024, the Petitioner allegedly became incommunicado thereafter, and she subsequently came to learn that the Petitioner was intending to marry another woman. According to the Petitioner, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 6 the criminal proceedings have thus been initiated out of personal grievance arising from the failed relationship rather than on account of any act constituting the alleged offences. (v) The Petitioner has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnish Singh @ Soni Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Another1, to contend that in a situation where a woman knowingly maintains a physical relationship for a prolonged period, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of an alleged promise to marry. The Court also observed that prolonged continuation of relations over several years establishes that there was never an element of force or deceit. (vi) In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, the Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 126 dated 06.08.2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 450 of 2024 pending before the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack, instituted for the alleged offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 1 (2025) 4 SCC 197 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 7 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 Opposite Party submits that the Petitioner established physical relations with the Informant without her free and voluntary consent and solely under the false pretext and assurance of marriage. It is contended that, despite the Informant’s initial reluctance and her specific request to defer any physical relationship until solemnization of marriage, the Petitioner allegedly forced himself upon her in his hostel room on 14.02.2018 by representing that they were already engaged and would shortly be married. (ii) The Opposite Party further contends that the Petitioner consistently represented the Informant as his prospective wife and continuously led her to believe that their marriage was certain to be solemnized. It is alleged that the Petitioner even organised a pre-wedding celebration in the presence of friends and well-wishers, thereby reinforcing the said representation and sustaining the alleged deception practised upon the Informant. (iii) It is further submitted that the Petitioner continued to assure the Informant that he would marry her and, on the strength of such assurances, maintained frequent physical relations with her till the year 2023. However, according to the Opposite Party, when the Informant insisted upon lawful marriage in January, 2024, the Petitioner allegedly continued to give false assurances and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 8 thereafter severed all communication by blocking every mode of contact in June, 2024 upon becoming engaged to another woman. It is further alleged that when the Informant attempted to contact the Petitioner thereafter, he abused her in filthy language, threatened to kill her and her father, and further threatened to circulate their intimate photographs on social media platforms. (iv) The Opposite Party further contends that although the medical examination of the Informant was conducted after a considerable lapse of approximately one year and four months from the alleged last act of sexual intercourse, the medical report specifically recorded that the possibility of sexual intercourse in the recent past could not be ruled out. It is submitted that the said medical opinion lends corroborative support to the allegations levelled by the Informant. (v) The Opposite Party placed its reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Yedla Srinivas Rao v. State of A.P,.2 wherein, it was held that “The consent which has been obtained by the accused was not voluntary one which was given by her under misconception of fact that the accused would marry her but that is not a consent in law.” (vi) To address the issue of delay in lodging the F.I.R Opposite Party has relied on the Judgement in the case Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana3 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court 2 (2006) 11 SCC 615 3 (2010) 8 SCC 714 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 9 recognised that the victims of sexual assault and their families often suffer a paralyzing "stigma of dishonour," making a delay in reporting a natural human response rather than a tactical fabrication. (vii) On the aforesaid grounds, the Opposite Party contends that the materials available on record clearly disclose a prima facie case against the Petitioner for the alleged offences. It is, therefore, submitted that the present petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. and the consequential criminal proceedings is devoid of merit, untenable in law, and liable to be dismissed. 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 a well-settled principle of law that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court ought not to embark upon a meticulous enquiry into the reliability, admissibility, or sufficiency of the evidence collected during investigation. The scope of interference at such stage is inherently limited and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in exceptional circumstances where continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court or where no offence is disclosed on the face of the record. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 10 8. In the present case, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the F.I.R. as well as the consequential criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of Opposite Party No. 2 for the alleged commission of the offences mentioned therein. 9. In order to determine whether the alleged “consent” stood vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two essential conditions are required to be satisfied. Firstly, the promise of marriage must be shown to have been false from its very inception, having been made in bad faith and without any genuine intention of being fulfilled at the time when such promise was extended. Secondly, the said false promise must bear a direct and immediate nexus with the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual relationship, so as to establish that her consent was obtained solely on account of such misconception of fact. 10. This Court is of the considered view that the allegations made in the present case, when examined in their entirety, prima facie disclose the existence of a consensual relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The materials on record indicate that the parties were engaged in a romantic relationship and shared physical intimacy since the year 2018. However, with the passage of time, differences and discord appear to have arisen between them, resulting in deterioration of the relationship and eventual estrangement and separation between the parties. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 11 11. The Court also deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of in Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of Maharashtra,4, wherein it has been held that: “27. It is hard to believe that the complainant, being a highly qualified and well-placed major woman, kept on bending to the demands of the appellant for a period of nearly 16 years without raising any protest to any quarter that the appellant was exploiting her sexually under the pretext of a false promise of marriage. The prolonged period off 16 years during which the sexual relations continued unabatedly between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship. 29. In Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398, this Court held that to make a man, accused of having sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage, criminally liable, the physical relationship for a prolonged period, it cannot be said with certainly that the said physical relationship was purely because of alleged promise made by the accused to marry her. 38. It is trite that there is a distinction between rape and consensual relationship. ” 12. In the case at hand, it appears from the materials available on record that both parties remained in a relationship for a considerable and prolonged period of time. However, upon the relationship turning unsuccessful and the parties subsequently drifting apart, the Opposite Party proceeded to lodge the impugned F.I.R. against the Petitioner, that too after a substantial lapse of time. Prima facie, the circumstances of the case indicate that the relationship shared between the parties was 4 (2025) 4 SCC 197 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 12 consensual in nature, maintained voluntarily over several years without any contemporaneous allegation of coercion or force. 13. It is also pertinent to note that the Petitioner has since solemnized his marriage and is presently leading his matrimonial life. In such circumstances, continuation of the present criminal proceeding, arising out of a past consensual relationship, is likely to cause serious disturbance and prejudice to his existing matrimonial life and family circumstances. This Court is of the view that the criminal process ought not to be permitted to operate in a manner which unnecessarily disrupts a settled matrimonial relationship, particularly when the allegations, prima facie, emanate from a failed consensual relationship between the parties. 14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and upon a careful and due appreciation of the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Petition stands allowed in the interest of justice. V. CONCLUSION: 15. In view of the foregoing analysis, and upon an anxious, careful, and comprehensive consideration of the material facts, records, and circumstances attendant to the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offence alleged, particularly when the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 13 materials on record overwhelmingly indicate that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature. 16. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed. 17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated22nd May, 2026/