Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27282 (ORI)

Sourav Kumar Rout v. State of Odisha

2026-03-13

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

body2026
JUDGMENT : SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated against him. The Petitioner, against whom allegations have been levelled of having maintained a physical relationship with the informant/Opposite Party No.2 without her consent, seeks quashment of the First Information Report registered as Bhawanipatna Sadar P.S. Case No.473 of 2025 as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, presently pending as C.T. Case No.1007 of 2025 before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the continuation of the said criminal proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of law and warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. During the period between the years 2022 and 2023, while the informant/Opposite Party No.2 was serving as an Assistant Revenue Inspector (ARI) in the Tahasil Office at Golamunda, she came into acquaintance with the present Petitioner, who at the relevant time, was working as a Junior Revenue Assistant (JRA) in the same office. Owing to their professional proximity, they developed familiarity which, according to the prosecution version, subsequently matured into a romantic relationship between them. It is alleged that in the course of the said relationship, the Petitioner managed to obtain certain nude photographs of the informant–victim/Opposite Party No.2. 3. The further allegation in the F.I.R. is that the Petitioner thereafter misused the said photographs as a means of coercion and intimidation, and on the strength of such material compelled the informant to maintain physical relations with him on multiple occasions against her will. It is also alleged that the Petitioner repeatedly threatened the informant with dire consequences, including threats to her life, in the event she disclosed the said acts to anyone. 4. Being subjected to such intimidation and coercion, the informant eventually approached the local police station and lodged the present First Information Report, which culminated in registration of Bhawanipatna Sadar P.S. Case No.473 of 2025 and the consequential criminal proceeding. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the present CRLMC has been filed before this Court seeking quashment of the said F.I.R. and the criminal proceeding arising therefrom. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 5. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the present CRLMC has been filed before this Court seeking quashment of the said F.I.R. and the criminal proceeding arising therefrom. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions, as borne out from the oral arguments and Written Note of Submissions: i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the First Information Report in question has been lodged after an inordinate delay of nearly one year from the alleged breakdown of the relationship between the Petitioner and the informant. It is submitted that the materials on record would clearly indicate that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and had developed voluntarily while both were serving in the same office. According to the Petitioner, the relationship subsequently deteriorated and ultimately came to an end on account of certain personal misunderstandings between them. In such circumstances, it is argued that the allegations of rape and criminal intimidation levelled against the Petitioner are totally false and have been raised only as an afterthought. ii) Learned counsel further submits that the informant, being aggrieved by the breakdown of the relationship, has attempted to give a criminal colour to what was essentially a consensual relationship between two adults. Hence, it is contended that the continuation of the criminal proceeding on the basis of such belated and motivated allegations would amount to an abuse of the process of law and therefore warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. iii) Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the criminal proceeding in question has been maliciously initiated against the Petitioner. It is contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated and bears no nexus whatsoever with the offences alleged in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel emphatically contends that the Petitioner has neither given any threat to the informant nor did he commit rape, as alleged. According to him, continuation of the proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and result in undue harassment to the Petitioner. He further contends that in order to find out the truth the investigation should have been conducted as per the notification of the Home Department vide Notification bearing No.PT-3-Home CPM-MSc 0213-2023- 22520 dated 30.06.2024. According to him, continuation of the proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and result in undue harassment to the Petitioner. He further contends that in order to find out the truth the investigation should have been conducted as per the notification of the Home Department vide Notification bearing No.PT-3-Home CPM-MSc 0213-2023- 22520 dated 30.06.2024. On these premises, he prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the relief sought in the present CRLMC and quash the impugned proceeding in the interest of justice. iv) The major ground of invoking the present CRLMC is that the wrong slapping of the case against the petitioner under the IPC section though the petitioner’s case should have been under the BNS sections. This the highway ground taken be the petitioner which warrant termination of the proceedings at this stage. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY: 6. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 made the following submissions: a) In opposition, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that pursuant to the registration of the First Information Report, the investigating agency has conducted the investigation in accordance with law and has collected materials which prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. It is contended that the investigation has culminated in submission of the relevant materials before the learned court below. In such circumstances, it is argued that at this stage, when the investigating agency has already found prima facie materials against the Petitioner, there exists no compelling, exceptional, or extraordinary circumstance warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the proceeding. b) Learned counsel appearing for the State further submits that the questions relating to the veracity of the allegations made in the First Information Report, the defense plea advanced by the Petitioner regarding the existence of a prior consensual relationship, and the assertion of false implication are all matters which inherently involve disputed questions of fact. According to him, such issues can neither be conclusively determined nor satisfactorily adjudicated in a proceeding invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended that these are matters which necessarily require appreciation of evidence and examination of witnesses, which fall squarely within the domain of the trial court. According to him, such issues can neither be conclusively determined nor satisfactorily adjudicated in a proceeding invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended that these are matters which necessarily require appreciation of evidence and examination of witnesses, which fall squarely within the domain of the trial court. c) Learned counsel further submits that the law is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court ought not to undertake a meticulous analysis of the evidentiary materials nor should it evaluate the defense set up by the accused. At this stage, the Court is required only to ascertain whether the allegations contained in the F.I.R., taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence warranting continuation of the prosecution. Once the investigating agency, upon due investigation, has collected prima facie materials and placed the same before the competent court, the criminal proceeding ought ordinarily to be permitted to take its natural course. d) It is further contended that the defense sought to be projected by the Petitioner regarding consensual relationship and the alleged delay in lodging the F.I.R. are essentially matters of evidentiary evaluation which cannot be examined in proceedings of the present nature. Such pleas, according to the State, can only be tested through cross-examination of witnesses and appreciation of evidence during trial. e) Learned counsel therefore submits that interference by this Court at the threshold would amount to prematurely stifling a legitimate prosecution and would run contrary to the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. On these premises, it is prayed that the present CRLMC, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. IV. THIS COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the materials placed on record, this Court proceeds to examine whether the present case warrants interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court. 8. The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is undoubtedly wide; yet the amplitude of such power is tempered by well- settled judicial restraints. 8. The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is undoubtedly wide; yet the amplitude of such power is tempered by well- settled judicial restraints. The inherent jurisdiction is not intended to supplant the ordinary process of criminal trial but rather to ensure that the judicial process is not abused and that the administration of criminal justice remains fair, just and effective. 9. The doctrinal foundation of such power lies in the inherent authority of constitutional courts to prevent miscarriage of justice. However, it has been repeatedly emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the exercise of this extraordinary jurisdiction must remain an exception rather than the rule. Interference at the threshold of criminal proceedings is therefore justified only in those rare and compelling circumstances where the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the continuation of the prosecution would manifestly amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 10. The seminal decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has authoritatively delineated the parameters governing the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court, while recognizing the breadth of such power, cautioned that it must be exercised sparingly and only in those categories of cases where the allegations are patently absurd, inherently improbable, or legally untenable. The illustrative categories enumerated therein continue to guide courts in assessing whether a criminal proceeding deserves to be interdicted at the threshold. 11. It is equally well settled that while examining a prayer for quashing, the High Court does not sit as a court of appeal over the investigation. The Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous evaluation of evidence nor to adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The veracity, reliability, and evidentiary worth of the allegations are matters which lie squarely within the domain of trial. 12. In the present case, the allegations contained in the First Information Report disclose that the Petitioner, during the course of his acquaintance with the informant, allegedly obtained certain nude photographs of her and thereafter used such material as a means of coercion to compel her to maintain physical relations with him. 12. In the present case, the allegations contained in the First Information Report disclose that the Petitioner, during the course of his acquaintance with the informant, allegedly obtained certain nude photographs of her and thereafter used such material as a means of coercion to compel her to maintain physical relations with him. The informant has further alleged that the Petitioner threatened her with dire consequences, including threats to her life, should she disclose the said acts to anyone. 13. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and that the criminal case has been instituted only after the breakdown of such relationship. It is further contended that the First Information Report has been lodged nearly one year after the alleged incidents and that the allegations are therefore motivated and constitute an afterthought intended to harass the Petitioner. 14. While the aforesaid submissions have been made with considerable emphasis, this Court is unable to lose sight of the limited scope of scrutiny permissible in a proceeding of the present nature. The defense that the relationship between the parties was consensual and that the allegations are false or exaggerated necessarily involves an examination of factual aspects which can be adjudicated only upon appreciation of evidence. 15. The Supreme Court has consistently held that disputed questions of fact cannot ordinarily be examined in a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra , (2021) 19 SCC 401 the Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold merely on the basis of defense pleas raised by the accused, particularly where the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The same may be extracted herein below: 8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892 and Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri. L.J. 1] It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognisance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding.” Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the allegations contained in the F.I.R., if taken at their face value, disclose a narrative involving alleged coercion, intimidation, and exploitation. Whether such allegations are ultimately substantiated by credible evidence is a matter which falls within the province of the trial court. 16. Considerable emphasis has also been laid by learned counsel for the Petitioner on the alleged delay in lodging the First Information Report. While delay in lodging an F.I.R. may, in certain circumstances, assume significance in assessing the credibility of the prosecution case, it is equally well recognized that delay by itself cannot be treated as a determining factor for quashing a criminal proceeding at the threshold. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged that in cases involving allegations of sexual exploitation or intimidation, the victim may hesitate in approaching the authorities due to social stigma, fear, or psychological trauma. 17. The criminal justice system must therefore remain sensitive to the complex realities that often surround allegations of sexual misconduct. Courts must be cautious not to adopt a mechanical approach that prematurely discredits such allegations solely on the ground of delay, particularly at a stage where the evidentiary record is yet to be fully developed. 18. 17. The criminal justice system must therefore remain sensitive to the complex realities that often surround allegations of sexual misconduct. Courts must be cautious not to adopt a mechanical approach that prematurely discredits such allegations solely on the ground of delay, particularly at a stage where the evidentiary record is yet to be fully developed. 18. The contention advanced by the Petitioner that the offences have been registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code instead of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita also does not persuade this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. It is well settled that the mere invocation of an incorrect statutory provision does not vitiate the criminal proceeding if the factual allegations otherwise disclose the commission of an offence. Such questions regarding the applicability of particular statutory provisions can always be addressed by the trial court at the appropriate stage. 19. Equally unpersuasive is the argument that the investigation has been conducted in violation of certain administrative notifications issued by the Home Department. The materials placed before this Court do not reveal any such patent illegality or procedural impropriety that would justify invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to interdict the prosecution at the threshold. 20. The criminal law performs a vital societal function in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring accountability for alleged wrongdoing. Premature termination of a prosecution, particularly where the allegations disclose serious accusations requiring evidentiary examination, may result in stifling a legitimate prosecution and undermining the administration of criminal justice. 21. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is therefore to be exercised with great caution and judicial restraint. Unless the Court is satisfied that the case falls squarely within the well-recognized parameters justifying quashing of criminal proceedings, interference at the threshold would be neither warranted nor desirable. 22. Upon an overall consideration of the allegations contained in the First Information Report, the materials collected during investigation, and the legal principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered view that the present case does not fall within the exceptional categories warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 23. The defense sought to be projected by the Petitioner regarding consensual relationship, false implication, and delay in lodging the F.I.R. are all matters which may appropriately be argued before the learned trial court during the course of trial. The defense sought to be projected by the Petitioner regarding consensual relationship, false implication, and delay in lodging the F.I.R. are all matters which may appropriately be argued before the learned trial court during the course of trial. At this stage, this Court finds no justification to embark upon an adjudication of such disputed factual issues. IV. CONCLUSION: 24. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The allegations contained in the First Information Report, taken at their face value, disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences and therefore the criminal proceeding cannot be interdicted at this stage. Accordingly, the present CRLMC stands dismissed . However, it is clarified that the observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the prayer for quashing and shall not influence the learned trial court while considering the matter on merits. 25. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.