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 inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in Tritol P.S. Case No. 431 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.520 of 2025. The F.I.R. was registered and thereafter, a preliminary charge-sheet was subsequently. Subsequently, the Petitioner was arrested in execution of a Non-Bailable Warrant. I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The F.I.R. was lodged by the elder sister of the prosecutrix, alleging that the prosecutrix, was employed as an Accountant at ‘Ashutosh Associate’ at Jagatsingpur, which is stated to be owned by the Petitioner’s brother and, due to his ill-health, it was allegedly being managed by the Petitioner himself. (ii) The Petitioner is married to the informant and is the father of a 14 years’ old son. It is alleged that the Petitioner harboured one- sided affection towards the informant’s sister and that, on 16.03.2023, he tried to be Romeo and he allegedly proposed his love to her. (iii) After about four months of the prosecutrix joining the establishment, it is alleged that the Petitioner, having developed an interest on her, began to show undue attention and make over affectionate inquiry about her. It is further alleged that on 03.02.2025, on the occasion of the prosecutrix’s birthday, the petitioner sent a dress to her rented accommodation which was totally an unsolicited gesture. (iv) It is further alleged that, with an intention to take undue advantage of the prosecutrix, the Petitioner included her in various teams and took her to different places on the pretext of office tours. It is further alleged that the petitioner assigned her excessive works with a view of keeping her in the office till late hours. The prosecutrix, feeling uncomfortable, has stated to have refused to accompany him. (v) The Petitioner allegedly even sent a truck-load of luxury household items including an AC, inverter, dressing table, bed, Godrej almirah and washing machine to their rented house and also he transferred Rs. 3,60,000/- to the prosecutrix’s account in an unsolicited manner. The prosecutrix, feeling uncomfortable, has stated to have refused to accompany him. (v) The Petitioner allegedly even sent a truck-load of luxury household items including an AC, inverter, dressing table, bed, Godrej almirah and washing machine to their rented house and also he transferred Rs. 3,60,000/- to the prosecutrix’s account in an unsolicited manner. (vi) Thereafter, on a subsequent day, after consuming alcohol, the Petitioner called the prosecutrix to the office, abused her and asked to accompany him to a hotel. Upon her refusal, it is further alleged that he dragged her into the office room and attempted to choke her by pressing her neck. (vii) On 20.08.2025, in the evening, the Petitioner, accompanied by five companions, arrived at the informant’s residence and verbally abused the informant and her mother. When the informant’s father stepped outside, the Petitioner allegedly pointed out a firearm at his head, causing him to flee back inside the house and lock the door in fear. (viii) Thereafter, the investigation was conducted, the charge-sheet was filed, and the prosecutrix was examined. Her statement under Section 182 of BNS, 2023 was recorded, wherein she categorically narrated the commission of rape by the Petitioner. The informant, prosecutrix and other witnesses were also examined under Section 180 of BNSS, 2023, during which the prosecutrix reiterated the allegation of rape. (ix) Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner was arrested on the basis of NBW. The learned Court took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, for trial, whereupon C.T. Case No. 340 of 2025 was registered. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present Petition. II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE P ETITIONER 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 21.10.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Tirtol in G.R. Case No. 520 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 340 of 2025, whereby the Petitioner was arrested pursuant to execution of a NBW and was produced before the learned Magistrate. (ii) The Petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated. A bare reading of the F.I.R. itself reveals that the prosecutrix had misappropriated of funds of Rs. (ii) The Petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated. A bare reading of the F.I.R. itself reveals that the prosecutrix had misappropriated of funds of Rs. 3,60,000/- entrusted to her, and in order to shield herself from the criminal liability arising therefrom, has, due to personal vendetta, falsely entangled the petitioner in the present case. (iii) The Petitioner further submits that the F.I.R initially included allegations under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act; however, upon reliance being placed on the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023, the said provisions were deleted, and instead Sec 64(2) of BNS, 2023 were subsequently added. (iv) The Petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P. & Anr. 2025 Live Law (SC) 4 , wherein it has been held that “The omission of crucial facts in the FIR cannot be supplemented through witness’ statement under Section 161 Cr.PC/ 180 BNSS, 2023 and though FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia containing all the detailed facts of the incident and is merely a document that triggers and sets into motion the criminal legal process, yet it must disclose the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed as otherwise it would be susceptible to being quashed.” (v) The Petitioner further submits that in the present case the FIR contains exhaustive allegations, with specific time stamps narrating the events allegedly faced by the victim. In such circumstances, it is surprising that the allegations relating to the incident dated 17.07.2025 were not disclosed therein. The subsequent introduction of these material facts unmistakably indicates an afterthought on the part of the prosecution, aimed at attracting more severe penal provisions against the Petitioner. (vi) The petitioner contends that although the F.I.R. contains the allegations of sexual assault, the victim, during the course of investigation, refused to undergo medical examination on 22.08.2025 without any valid or justifiable reason and consented to such examination only after prolonged delay, which, according to the Petitioner has the propensity to create serious doubt regarding the veracity of the said allegations. (vii) The Petitioner further contends that the present case is one of a honey trap, which, according to him, finds corroboration from the statements of the witnesses, including the informant. (vii) The Petitioner further contends that the present case is one of a honey trap, which, according to him, finds corroboration from the statements of the witnesses, including the informant. It is submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated and that the prosecutrix, while employed as an Accountant, misused her position and procured expensive articles for herself by utilising the company’s resources. (viii) The Petitioner submits that the witnesses examined under Section 180 BNSS, 2023 are closely connected to the informant as well as the prosecutrix and are therefore likely to have been tutored or influenced; consequently, their statements cannot be regarded as wholly reliable, and this aspect cannot be overlooked. The Petitioner further submits that the allegations in the instant case are based solely on an alleged unverified statement made with hostile animus and with the intent to damage his reputation and vilify his image in the society. III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTY N O .1: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 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, on bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the statements recorded by the victim, the informant, and other witnesses, a prima facie case is clearly makes out to the effect that the present Petitioner committed rape upon his employee without her consent. (ii) The Opp. Party submits that, after recording the evidence and considering the materials available on record, the police submitted preliminary charge-sheet on 17.10.2025. It is further submitted that, during the course of investigation, the I.O. found that the present Petitioner, by misusing his dominate position, developed undue sexual relations with the prosecutrix. (iii) The Opp. Party contends that the Petitioner threatened and pressurized the prosecutrix to marry him despite having his wife and a 14 years old son. However, the petitioner, along with his associates, criminally intimated the victim’s family. (iv) The Opp. Party further submits that, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a prima facie case is clearly made out, cognizance has been duly taken, and there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned SDJM. Accordingly, the present petition is not tenable in law and liable to be dismissed. IV. (iv) The Opp. Party further submits that, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a prima facie case is clearly made out, cognizance has been duly taken, and there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned SDJM. Accordingly, the present petition is not tenable in law and liable to be dismissed. IV. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTY N O .2: 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 earnestly made the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine. (v) The Opp. Party submits that, on bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the statements recorded by the victim, the informant, and other witnesses, a prima facie case is clearly makes out to the effect that the present Petitioner committed rape upon his employee without her consent. (vi) The Opp. Party submits that, after recording the evidence and considering the materials available on record, the police submitted preliminary charge-sheet on 17.10.2025. It is further submitted that, during the course of investigation, the I.O. found that the present Petitioner, by misusing his dominate position, developed undue sexual relations with the prosecutrix. (vii) The Opp. Party contends that the Petitioner threatened and pressurized the prosecutrix to marry him despite having his wife and a 14 years’ old son, and that the petitioner, along with his associates, criminally intimated the victim’s family. (viii) The Opp. Party further submits that, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a prima facie case is clearly made out, cognizance has been duly taken, and there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned SDJM. Accordingly, the present petition is not tenable in law and liable to be dismissed. V. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS 6. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 7. In light of the forgoing facts and submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the principal issue which arises for determination is whether the order of cognizance passed by the Sessions Judge, Jagatsingpur can be quashed by this Court in exercise of the inherent powers under law. 8. 7. In light of the forgoing facts and submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the principal issue which arises for determination is whether the order of cognizance passed by the Sessions Judge, Jagatsingpur can be quashed by this Court in exercise of the inherent powers under law. 8. When an incident of the aforesaid nature and gravity is alleged to have been committed, that too by a close relative such as a brother-in- law, the same cannot be lightly brushed aside as a dispute of a purely private character having no serious impact on society. Allegations of such nature, if established, carry social ramifications and affect not only the individual victim but also the social fabric at large. 9. The question that arises for consideration is whether the alleged act was committed with the consent of the woman or not. In cases involving allegations of sexual assault, where the victim has categorically stated in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent to the act, the Court is bound to give due weight to such assertion. In such circumstances, the absence of consent must be presumed, unless the contrary is established in accordance with law. 10. In the present case, the Petitioner contends that there is no specific allegation of rape and further submits that the learned J.M.F.C., Tirtol lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case, as the alleged offence was committed beyond the limits if his territorial jurisdiction. However, upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that there is uncertainty regarding the exact place of occurrence. In such circumstances, where it is unclear within which local areas the offence was committed, any Court having jurisdiction over any of the concerned local areas may validly inquire into and try the case in accordance with law. 11. It is further stated that the statement given by the prosecutrix under Section 180 of BNSS, 2023, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, clearly discloses the commission of rape. And it is found that the prosecutrix is reliable and trustworthy in that case and the charge can be made upon sole reliance on the deposition of the victim/witness. 12. The reliance is placed on the Supreme Court in the Phool Singh v. State of M.P. (2022) 2 SCC 74 wherein it has been held that: “10.1. And it is found that the prosecutrix is reliable and trustworthy in that case and the charge can be made upon sole reliance on the deposition of the victim/witness. 12. The reliance is placed on the Supreme Court in the Phool Singh v. State of M.P. (2022) 2 SCC 74 wherein it has been held that: “10.1. Whether, in case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay v. State of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC 191 it is observed that in Para 9 to 14 as under: 9. In the State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchnad Jain , (1990) 1 SCC 550 this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person’s lust and therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspension as that of an accomplice.” 13. It is well settled that where an offense is committed partly in one local area and a partly in another, or where the offense of several acts occurring in different local areas, the case may be tried in any one of such local areas. In respect of offences of a continuing nature which extend over multiple jurisdictions, the trial may be validly conducted in any of the jurisdiction where the offense is alleged to have taken place. In the present case, the alleged act is of a continuing nature, and therefore the registration of the case at Tirtol, P.S. cannot be said to be legally impermissible. 14. The contention of the Petitioner that the offense of rape was not mentioned in the F.I.R. is legally untenable. It is well settled that an F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia and is not required to contain chronicle of all intricate and minute details or a precise legal classification of the offences. Particularly, where the F.I.R. is lodged by a relative under compelling circumstances, the same may not reflect the exact legal terminology or the complete set of facts in a technically correct manner. What is material is that the F.I.R. discloses the occurrence of a cognizable offence and provides sufficient information to enable the police to initiate an investigation. 15. Particularly, where the F.I.R. is lodged by a relative under compelling circumstances, the same may not reflect the exact legal terminology or the complete set of facts in a technically correct manner. What is material is that the F.I.R. discloses the occurrence of a cognizable offence and provides sufficient information to enable the police to initiate an investigation. 15. In the present case, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 21.10.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Tirtol on the ground that it is not a reasoned one and that the learned Court seized of the matter failed to apply its judicious mind before passing the order. 16. This Court is of the considered view that the matter shall proceed further in accordance with law. It is made clear that it is open to the investigating agency and the competent court to proceed with the investigation and subsequent proceedings, strictly in accordance with law and without being influenced by any observation made herein. VI. C ONCLUSION 17. 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 the impugned order dated 21.10.2025, passed in C.T. Case No.340 of 2025, whereby coercive process was issued and the Petitioner was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur for trial, does not call for interference. The Petitioner is, therefore, directed to face trial and the proceedings shall continue in accordance with law. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief prayed for in the petition. 18. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed. 19. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.