Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27192 (ORI)

Manoj Kumar Moharana v. State Of Odisha

2026-02-13

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

body2026
JUDGMENT : Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner has instituted the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking quashing of the FIR and the Criminal Proceedings arising out of P.S. Case No.156/2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1729 of 2025, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Rourkela, in connection with the alleged commission of offences under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) In the year 2018, the victim came into contact with the one of her batchmates, namely Manoj Moharana, the present Petitioner, through a WhatsApp group of her school friends. The Petitioner is presently employed at Hi- Tech Medical College and Hospital, Rourkela, and is a surgeon by profession. (ii) The complainant is a major and a resident of United States of America, and it is stated that she was fully aware of the Petitioner’s marital status and that the relationship between the parties continued with mutual consent. (iii) It is stated that, from the year 2019 to 2023, the Petitioner and the victim remained in regular contact through mobile phones and social media platforms, during which their relationship gradually developed and depended into a romantic relationship. (iv) In the year 2023, the Petitioner showed disinterest towards his wife and called the complainant to India. During this period, it is alleged that the Petitioner had physical relations with the Complainant at different hotels on the assurance of marriage. It is further stated that, in the same year, the Petitioner took the Complainant to Puri, applied vermillion on her forehead, and represented her as his wife. However, it is also stated that the Complainant expressed reluctance to continue physical relations as the marriage was not formally registered. (v) It is stated that both the Petitioner and the Victim remained in constant contact over phone calls and that their physical relationship was consensual and arose out of mutual consent. It is further stated that there was no deception or fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioner. (vi) The Petitioner had earlier moved an ABLAPL No. 8329 of 2025, which was disposed of on 20.09.2025. It is further stated that there was no deception or fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioner. (vi) The Petitioner had earlier moved an ABLAPL No. 8329 of 2025, which was disposed of on 20.09.2025. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE P ETITIONER 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 made against the Petitioner in connection with the F.I.R. In this regard, it is stated that the Petitioner came into contact with the complainant through a WhatsApp group created by her school friends, wherein one of the members was her batchmate. Subsequently, the Petitioner and the complainant began communicating with each other and remained in regular contact through mobile phone conversations and various social media platforms. (ii) During the course of such interactions, both parties voluntarily shared their personal and life-related issues, developed emotional attachment, and were involved in a consensual love relationship. The communications and relationship between the Petitioner and the complainant were mutual, voluntary, and without any coercion, force, or misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioner. (iii) The Petitioner further submits that the Complainant is a major, presently residing in the USA, and was at all material times fully aware of the marital status of the Petitioner. Despite such knowledge, the Complainant, of her own free and volition, continued the relationship with the Petitioner on mutual consent. (iv) The Petitioner contends that the relationship between the parties were consensual in nature and that at no point did the Petitioner practice any deception, inducement or fraudulent so as to obtain consent of the Complainant. (v) The Petitioner further contends that the intention and continuance of the present criminal proceedings against the Petitioner are nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law. The same have been deliberately and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, solely with a view to harass, intimidate, and prejudice the Petitioner, and not for the redressal of any genuine grievance. The same have been deliberately and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, solely with a view to harass, intimidate, and prejudice the Petitioner, and not for the redressal of any genuine grievance. (vi) The Petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prithvirajan v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police& Anr ., {Ciminal Appeal No. 282 of 2025 @ SLP (Crl) No. 12663 of 2022} wherein the Court observed that: “The instant case is one of consensual relationship between the Appellant and prosecutrix. Even otherwise, it does not appear from the record that the initial promise to marry allegedly made by the Appellant was false to begin with. Perusal of FIR itself suggests that the alleged promise to marry could not be fulfilled by the appellant due to intervening circumstances. Consequently, the relationship ended because of which the present FIR came to be registered. Under these circumstances, letting the appellant face trial would be nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court. This cannot be permitted”. (vii) The Petitioner submits that in the instant application, the Petitioner has specifically prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings against him from their very inception, including the impugned F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTY N O . 1 AND 2: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 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 submits that, she was initially married and relocated to the USA in the year 2001. After the marriage, she discovered that her husband was suffering from certain medical issues, owing to which the marriage could not be consummated. It further submitted that, subsequently, her husband relocated to Abu Dhabi. (ii) The Opp. Party further submits that the Petitioner and Opp. Part No. 2 came in contact and, over a period of time, developed an emotionally attachment. The Petitioner represented to Opp. Party No.2 that he was not satisfied with his marital life, stating that his marriage was forced one. He further conveyed that both he and Opp. Party No.2 were similarly placed in their respective circumstances. The Petitioner assured Opp. Part No. 2 came in contact and, over a period of time, developed an emotionally attachment. The Petitioner represented to Opp. Party No.2 that he was not satisfied with his marital life, stating that his marriage was forced one. He further conveyed that both he and Opp. Party No.2 were similarly placed in their respective circumstances. The Petitioner assured Opp. Party-2 that he would leave his wife and accept Opp. Party No.2 as his life partner. (iii) The Opp. Party contends that the Petitioner established and continued physical relations with Opp. Party No.2 despite her initial unwillingness to engage in such relations prior to marriage. It is submitted that the Petitioner, on the pretext of marrying Opp. Party-2 and assuring her of formalizing the relationship, maintained sexual relations with her without legally solemnizing or registering the marriage. (iv) The Opp. Party further contends that the ingredients of Section 69 BNS, 2023, are prima facie made out at this stage. A bare reading of the F.I.R. clearly reveals that the Petitioner maintained sexual relations with the Opp. Party No.2 on the false promise that he would marry her after leaving his wife. (v) It is further submitted that the Petitioner never had any genuine intention to marry Opp. Party No.2 and made such assurances solely to obtain her consent for maintaining physical relations. The consent, if any, was thus obtained on the basis of misrepresentation and false promise, attracting the provisions of the aforesaid section. (vi) The Opp. Party submits that, in the present case, the statement of the Opp. Party No.2 was duly recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. Thereafter, the statements of other material witnesses were also recorded during the course of investigation. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted the chargesheet, and the learned Court has already taken cognizance of the offences alleged therein. (vii) In such circumstances, the present CRLMC seeking quashing of the proceedings is not maintainable. It is submitted that the Petitioner has failed to place on record the relevant materials collected during investigation for the purpose of seeking quashing. Once the charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, and the materials disclose a prima facie case, the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court ought not to be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution at its threshold. (viii) The Opp. Once the charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, and the materials disclose a prima facie case, the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court ought not to be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution at its threshold. (viii) The Opp. Party further submits that since the chargesheet had already been filed and the learned Court had taken cognizance of the offences well prior to the filing of the present CRLMC Petition. The Petitioner has neither challenged the chargesheet nor the order taking cognizance in accordance with law. (ix) The further submits that the Petitioner has deliberately and consciously suppressed these materials facts while approaching this Court. Such suppression of material facts disentitles the Petitioner from seeking any discretionary relief under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that a party who approaches the Court must do so with clean hands, and any suppression of material facts is sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition. IV. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS 5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 6. In light of the forgoing facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients required to attract Section 69 of BNS, 2023 are clearly made out. The said provision stipulates that whoever, by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, and such sexual intercourse does not amount to the offence of rape, shall be liable to be punished in accordance with law. The explanation appended to the provision clarifies that deceitful shall include making a false promise of employment or promotion, or inducing marriage, after by suppressing one’s identity. 7. The Court notes that, in the present case, it is not the prosecution’s case that the alleged act was forcible in nature. The specific contention of the victim is that she consented to the sexual relationship on account of the promise of marriage allegedly extended by the Petitioner. However, the materials placed on record indicate that the victim, being a married woman, was fully aware of the subsisting marital bond and the legal impediment to entering into a lawful marriage with the petitioner. Despite such knowledge, she voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse with him. 8. However, the materials placed on record indicate that the victim, being a married woman, was fully aware of the subsisting marital bond and the legal impediment to entering into a lawful marriage with the petitioner. Despite such knowledge, she voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse with him. 8. Similar interpretation was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the Jothiragawan v. State represented by the Inspector of Police & Anr., 2025 SCC Online SC 628 wherein it has been held that: “12. On a reading of the statements made by the victim before the Police, both the First Information Statement and that recorded later on, we are not convicted that the sexual relationship admitted by both the parties was without the consent of the victim. That they were closely related and were in a relationship is admitted by the victim. The allegation is also of threat and coercion against the victim, to have sexual intercourse with accused, which even as per the victim’s statement was repeated thrice in the same manner, when she willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room. The victim had also categorically stated that after the first incident and the second incident she was mentally upset, but that did not caution her from again accompanying the accused to hotel rooms. 13. Having heard both sides in this case, we have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the criminal proceedings initiated against the present appellant are nothing but an abuse of process of the court. This is precisely a case where the High Court should have interfered in exercise of its inherent and extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. these proceedings cannot go on. Hence, we direct that the proceedings initiated at the instance of the complainant which are presently going on before Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Erode in S.C. No. 49 of 2022, be hereby quashed.” 9. In the instant case the physical relationship between the parties was consensual from its inception and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as being against the will or without the consent of the prosecutrix. Even if the version of the prosecutrix is taken as its face value, there is no material available on record to prima facie establish that there was any dishonest inducement or intentional misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioner so as to attract the penal consequences contemplated under the law. 10. Even if the version of the prosecutrix is taken as its face value, there is no material available on record to prima facie establish that there was any dishonest inducement or intentional misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioner so as to attract the penal consequences contemplated under the law. 10. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr, (2025) 5 SCC 756 , wherein it was held that: “15.3. There is also no element of criminality that can be accrued to the Appellant, insofar as it is the own case of the prosecutrix, that she was in a relationship with the Appellant, insofar as it is the own case of the prosecutrix, that she was in a relationship with the Appellant, while being in a subsisting marriage. It is also hard to believe that the prosecutrix could have sustained a physical relationship for a prolonged period of five years, while being in a subsisting marriage, and even subsequently obtaining divorce to sustain the relationship. The prolonged period of relationship, during which the sexual relations continued between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship. The prosecutrix was thus, conscious and cognizant of the consequences of her actions, and had given her consent after an active and reasoned deliberations.” 11. In the present case, the Complainant was fully aware of the marital status of the Petitioner. The materials on record indicate that the parties were in a relationship for a considerable period of time and had voluntarily enjoyed each other’s company. It appears that the complaint came to be lodged only after the Petitioner declined to continue the physical relationship. The circumstances suggest that the complainant had taken a conscious and informed decision, after due application of mind, in entering into and continuing the relationship. 12. This Court is of the considered view that, even if the allegations made in the present case are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely, the same do not disclose the commission of any offence against the appellant. The complainant has failed to prima facie establish ingredients of the alleged offence so as to warrant continuation of the criminal proceedings. 13. The complainant has failed to prima facie establish ingredients of the alleged offence so as to warrant continuation of the criminal proceedings. 13. Moreover, even as per the allegations of the complainant, on the dates when the parties are stated to have had physical relations, she was already married. It is not the case that the complainant was of tender or immature age, incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of her actions. On the contrary, she is mature and educated woman, fully competent to comprehend the implications, both legal and moral, of entering into a consensual relationship during the subsistence of a valid marriage of both parties. 14. The circumstances, therefore, unmistakably indicate that the relationship was entered into with full awareness and volition on the part of the complainant. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that both parties have since solemnized their respective marriages and are presently leading their independent matrimonial lives. In such a view of the matter, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed. V. C ONCLUSION 15. In view of the foregoing analysis, and after an anxious and careful consideration of the material facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that to quash and set aside the F.I.R. as well as the criminal proceedings in respect of P.S. Case No. 156/2025, corresponding to G.R. No.1729/2025, presently pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Rourkela, as well as consequential criminal proceedings emanating therefrom, are liable to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, this Court is inclined to accede to the relief prayed for by the Petitioner. 16. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed. 17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.