Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 4557 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). Manoj Swain …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khirod Kumar Swain, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC Mr. Biplab Kumar Dash, Adv. (for O.P. No.4) 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 assailed the legality and validity of F.I.R. No. 756/2025 dated 28.12.2025 registered at Choudwar Police Station, UPD, Cuttack, along with all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, instituted for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 223, 352, 353(1)(b), 296 and 66(D) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and has prayed for 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 quashing of the same in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The Opposite Party No. 4, Smt. Sarita Pradhan, being the Informant in the present case, lodged an F.I.R. at Buguda Police Station, which was registered as Buguda P.S. Case No. 109 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 107 of 2024, on 19.02.2024. (ii) It is stated that the Informant alleged that she had been in a physical relationship with the Petitioner for a period of more than three years, on the assurance given by the Petitioner that he would solemnize marriage with her. (iii) It is further stated that the Petitioner subsequently declined to marry the Informant, pursuant to which the Informant approached the Inspector-in-Charge (I.I.C.) of Buguda Police Station seeking intervention and requesting that the Petitioner be directed to marry her. (iv) After receipt of the said F.I.R., the I.I.C., Buguda Police Station registered the same as Buguda P.S. Case No. 109 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 107 of 2024, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 417 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the Investigating Officer examined the Informant and other witnesses in course of investigation, and the case is presently awaiting submission of final form. 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 (v) It is submitted that the relationship between the Petitioner and the Informant was consensual in nature, both being adults at the relevant point of time, and that the allegations arise out of a failed consensual relationship, which are essentially matrimonial in character rather than constituting a criminal offence. (vi) It is stated that prior to the registration of the present dispute, no settlement or compromise was arrived at between the Petitioner’s father and the Informant in the presence of local gentries. (vii) It is stated that the absence of any settlement was on account of an earlier “BACHHANDHA” (boycott) imposed upon the Informant by the villagers due to her alleged conduct. It is further stated that the Petitioner asserts the Informant to be a married woman, which fact is claimed to be reflected in a letter dated 05.01.2025 issued by the Sarpanch of Golabandha Gram Panchayat. (viii) It is submitted that the investigating authorities, namely the I.I.C., Buguda Police Station as well as the supervising authority, the Superintendent of Police, Chhatrapur, failed to take into consideration or conduct any inquiry with regard to the said letter during the course of investigation prior to submission of the charge-sheet, thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice, as alleged by the Petitioner. (ix) In view of the aforementioned facts, it is stated that the Petitioner submits that the F.I.R. registered as Buguda P.S. Case No. 109 of 2024 is not maintainable in the eyes of law and, accordingly, 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 4 Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court seeking quashing of the same. II. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 3. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. In the present case, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceeding primarily on the ground that the nature of the alleged incident arises out of a consensual relationship between two consenting adults, both of whom are stated to be majors and fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. 8. It is contended that the dispute essentially stems from such consensual association between the parties and, therefore, does not constitute any 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 criminal offence so as to warrant continuation of the present proceeding. According to the Petitioner, in the absence of any ingredients constituting the alleged offence, the continuance of the criminal prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be interfered with in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 9. In order to determine whether the alleged “consent” stood vitiated on account of a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, it is well-settled that two essential ingredients are required to be cumulatively satisfied. Firstly, it must be established that the promise of marriage was false at its very inception, having been made in bad faith and without any intention of being honoured at the time it was allegedly extended. 10. Secondly, such alleged false promise must be shown to have a direct, proximate and immediate nexus with the prosecutrix’s decision to engage in the sexual relationship, so as to demonstrate that her consent was obtained solely and substantially on the basis of such alleged misconception of fact. In the absence of satisfaction of both these conditions, the consent so obtained cannot be readily held to be vitiated in law. 11. This Court is of the considered view that the allegations made in the present case, when examined in their entirety and on their face value, prima facie indicate the existence of a consensual relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent. 12. The materials placed on record suggest that the parties were engaged in a romantic association and had, during the subsistence of such 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 relationship, shared physical intimacy. However, with the passage of time, differences, misunderstandings and discord appear to have arisen between them, leading to deterioration of the relationship and eventual estrangement and separation. The said developments, as emerging from the record, prima facie reflect a breakdown of consensual association rather than constituting, at this stage, the ingredients of any criminal offence. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon due consideration and 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 is allowed. III. CONCLUSION: 14. 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. 15. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed. 16. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 22nd May, 2026