Orissa High Court
Binod Pandit @ Binod Kumar vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 13 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 702 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973).
Binod Pandit @ Binod Kumar .... Petitioner(s)
Pandit & Ors.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Kumar Pani, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA
Mr. Sukanta Kumar Nayak, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-22.01.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.02.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioners have 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.408 of 2023, corresponding to C.T. Case No.1152 of 2023, pending before the learned J.M.F.C, Chandikhole.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55
(i) On 04.07.2023 at about 9:30P.M., one Barsharani Ojha submitted
a written report before the I.I.C., Dharmasala Police Station. In the said report, she alleged that Petitioner No.1 had been in a love relationship with her for a considerable period of time. It was further alleged that they had gone to Puri together, where Petitioner No.1 promised to marry her. On the basis of such promise of marriage, Petitioner No.1 allegedly established physical relationship with the complainant on several occasions.
(ii) On 03.07.2023, the Petitioner No.1 allegedly informed the complainant over telephone that his marriage has been solemnized by his parents against his will. Thereafter, the Complainant went to the village of Petitioner No.1, where he allegedly denied having any love relationship her.
(iii) The Victim had left her matrimonial home and was residing at her parental house in village Odanga. She had instituted a divorce proceeding against her husband, which was subsequently allowed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur, and a decree of divorce was granted in her favour.
(iv) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, including that of the Victim. The Victim was sent for medical examination. Her wearing apparels and biological samples were seized and forwarded for chemical examination. The statement of the Victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate.
Page 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55
(v) Thereafter, the Petitioner No.1 was arrested and forwarded to judicial custody. Upon completion of investigation, the police found that the Petitioner and the Victim had been in a love relationship for a considerable period of time.
(vi) On the basis of the written report, Dharamasala P.S. Case No. 408 of 2023 was registered. Under the completion of investigation, the police submitted chargesheet on 30.11.2023 under Section 341, 294, 323, 493, 417, 354, 506 and 34 of I.P.C. against the Petitioner No.1. The co-accused persons, namely Petitioner No.2 to 5, were charge-sheeted under Section 341, 294, 323, 354, 506 and 34 of I.P.C.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Section 528 BNSS by filing the present CRLMC.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioners submits that he and his family members have been falsely implicated in the present case, though they have no involvement in the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the medical examination report of the victim does not reveal any signs and symptoms suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse, nor does it disclose any bodily injury indicative of the alleged forcible sexual assault.
Page 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55
(ii) The Petitioners further submits that the contents of F.I.R., on the basis of which the criminal proceedings has been initiated against the Petitioners, are contrary to the documents annexed to the Petition. It is contended that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are false, fabricated and devoid of any truth.
(iii) The Petitioners contends that the Investigating Agency has mechanically accepted the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as true, without conducting a fair and proper investigation to ascertain the veracity of the alleged occurrence.
(iv) It is further contended that, without making any sincere effort to uncover the real facts, the police have submitted the chargesheet against the Petitioners in a routine and mechanical manner.
(v) The Petitioners submitted that, upon a careful and proper appraisal of the materials collected during investigation, there is no prima facie evidence to constitute the alleged offences against the Petitioners. It is submitted that in the absence of any such material, the criminal case is an abuse of the process of the Court. The Petitioner, therefore, prays that the present proceedings to be quashed.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.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.
Page 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55
(i) The Opp. Party submits that, Opp. Party No.2 lodged an F.I.R before the Officer-in-charge Dharmasala P.S. against Petitioner No.1. in the said F.I.R., it has been alleged that Petitioner No1 established and maintained a physical relationship with Opp. Party No.2 under certain circumstances as detailed therein.
(ii) The Opp. Party submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R.
disclose the commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, the registration of the case and initiation of investigation were lawful and justified. It further submitted that the matter involves disputed questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated upon during trial, and the same cannot be examined in a proceeding seeking quashing at the threshold.
(iii) The Opp. Party contends that when the Opp. Party No.2 went to the house of the Petitioner No.1, he along with his family members, allegedly drove her out of the house and extended threats of dire consequences. It is further contended that such conduct clearly demonstrates the intention of the Petitioners and forms part of the continuous cause of action arising out of the incident.
(iv) It is submitted that these allegations prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences and require thorough investigation and adjudication during trial. The truthfulness or otherwise of the said allegations cannot be determined at this preliminary stage.
Page 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55
(v) The Opp. Party submits that upon receipt of the F.I.R. the police registered Dharmasala P.S. Case No. 408/2023 for offences punishable under Section 341, 294, 323, 493, 417, 354, 506 and 34 of I.P.C. in which corresponds to C.T. Case No. 1152/2023. After registration of the case, the Investigating Agency conducted a detailed investigation and, upon completion thereof, submitted chargesheet against the accused persons.
(vi) After submission of the chargesheet the Magistrate has taken the cognizance against the Petitioner, so it presumes a prima-facie case is made out against the Petitioners.
(vii) It is further submitted that the submission of the chargesheet clearly indicates that sufficient materials were found during investigation to proceed against the Petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, interference by this Court would not be warranted. Accordingly, the Opp. Party prays that the petition be dismissed in the interest of justice.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
6. In light of the forgoing facts and submissions advanced by the parties, the Court is of the considered view that the principal issue that arises for determination is whether the criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No. 1152 of 2023, arising out of Dharmsala P.S. Case No. 408 of 2023, presently pending the J.M.F.C., Chandikhole is liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent power of this Court.
Page 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55
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. 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.
9. Similar interpretation was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the Jothiragawan v. State represented by the Inspector of Police & Anr.,1, 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 1 2025 SCC Online SC 628 Page 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 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."
10. 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.
Page 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55
11. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr,2, 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."
12. This 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. 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 2 (2025) 5 SCC 756 Page 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 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. CONCLUSION:
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 the criminal proceedings in respect of C.T. Case No. 1152 of 2023 arising out of Dharmasala P.S. Case No.408/2023 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Chandikhole, 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.
Page 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55
17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 13th February, 2026/ Page 11