Prabina Pradhan @ Praveen Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1680 of 2025

*Prabina Pradhan @ Praveen* .....	*Petitioner*
*Pradhan* -versus-	Represented By Adv. – Mr. Susanta Kumar Tripathy
*1) State of Odisha* .....	*Opposite Party*
*2) Prachi Prangya Paramita*	Represented By Adv. –
*Rout*	Ms. Babita Kumari Sahu, AGA
	Mr. Achyuta Priyadarsan, Advocate for the O.P. No.2

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

17.11.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant(Victim) and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the StateOpposite Party No.1. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶10

By filing the present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, which corresponds to Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Accused-Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to

¶11

Page 1 of 8.

¶12

quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him in G.R. Case No.144 of 2024, arises out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.32 of 2024, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack.

¶13

The above noted Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.32 of 2024 was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Opposite Party No.2-Informant(Victim) alleging before the IIC, Cuttack Mahila Police Station that she did not have good relationship with her husband, as a result of which, she developed intimacy with the Petitioner and such relationship and intimacy subsequently turned into love relationship between them and it went to the extent of getting married. It has been alleged that initially the victim was not inclined to keep physical relationship with the Petitioner till they get married. However, the Petitioner forcibly kept physical relationship with her and she became pregnant. Since the Petitioner refused to marry the Informant and cut-off all relationship with the Informant-Victim, she was compelled to lodged the F.I.R. against the present Petitioner. After registration of the F.I.R., the Petitioner appeared before the police station and agreed to stay in live-in relationship with the Informant-Victim till she gets divorced and that he shall take care of the child in the womb of the victim. Since such commitment was not kept by the Petitioner, the Informant-Victim was compelled to pursue the criminal case which was filed at a later stage. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged against the Petitioner under Sections 376/417 of the I.P.C.

¶14

Page 2 of 8.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner and the Victim are known to each other and they were in love relationship. He further submitted that the physical relationship between the parties was with the will and consent of both the individuals and the Petitioner is ready and willing to marry the victim. He further contended that due to a misunderstanding between the Petitioner and the Informant, the above noted case was registered at the instance of the Informant making baseless allegations on mere surmises and conjectures. He further contended that as per terms of compromise, the Petitioner will marry the victim and take care of the child. On the ground of amicable settlement of the matter between the Petitioner and the Victim, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that further continuance of the present criminal proceeding would be an abuse of law and the same would not secure the ends of justice. Hence, it was prayed that the entire criminal proceeding be quashed on that ground alone. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhukar V. State of Maharashtra , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case of identical nature, has quashed the criminal proceeding.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant supported the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that the matter has been amicably settled and that the Petitioner has assured to marry the Informant-Victim. In the aforesaid context, referring to the compromise affidavit filed at the

¶17

Page 3 of 8.

¶18

instance of Opposite Party No.2-Informant, learned counsel for the Informant contended that due to a misunderstanding, the F.I.R. was lodged against the Petitioner. However, in the meantime, they have arrived at a compromise and they have both agreed to get married. In view of the subsequent development, learned counsel for the Informant contended that the Opposite Party No.2 is no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceeding any further. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2Informant submitted that the Opposite Party No.2-Informant will have no objection in the event this Court quashes the entire criminal proceeding.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to the quashing of the criminal proceeding. She further submitted that taking into consideration the gravity and nature of allegation, the criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioner at the instance of the Informant-Victim should not be quashed. He further contended that the alleged crime is no less a crime than a crime against the society. Further, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the State contended that where the crime, which is alleged to have been compromised, is sought to be quashed on the ground of such compromise, such crime cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if it is in the nature of a crime against the society. Learned counsel for the State further contended that on a careful reading of the allegation made in the F.I.R., it appears that the Petitioner has kept physical relationship with the victim without her consent. Thus, such crime

¶20

Page 4 of 8.

¶21

is punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. As such, such crime cannot be permitted to be compromised and such criminal case cannot be quashed in exercise of inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. On such ground, learned counsel for the State prayed for dismissal of the present application.

¶22

It is pertinent to mention here that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 15.07.2025, a statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023 by the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack on 26.09.2025 and a copy thereof has been forwarded to this Court. Registry of this Court produced a copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023 in a sealed cover.

¶23

On perusal of the statement of the victim recorded by the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack, it appears that the victim appeared before the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack on 26.09.2025 and she has given a statement admitting the fact that she was in a love relationship with the Petitioner for last two years. She has also stated that after making a promise to marry, the Petitioner kept physical relationship with her. Since the Petitioner refused to marry the Informant-Victim, the Informant-Victim lodged this F.I.R. In her statement, she has also admitted that in the meantime, matter has been amicably settled on compromise and that the Petitioner has assured to marry the victim and take care of her children. In her statement, she has categorically stated that she does not want to pursue the present criminal proceeding any further.

¶24

Page 5 of 8.

¶25

On a careful analysis of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023, it appears that the relationship developed between the Petitioner and the InformantVictim on the basis of love and attraction between them. In view of such fact, it cannot be construed that the intention of the Petitioner was to deceive the Informant-Victim at the outset. It further reveals that both are major and with their consent they were living in a live-in relationship and were having physical relationship. It is only when the Petitioner refused to marry the Informant-Victim that the present F.I.R. has been lodged.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the compromise affidavit on record, and further taking into consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023, which was produced before this Court at the time of hearing, this Court is of the considered view that both the Petitioner and Informant-Victim were attracted to each other right from the beginning. It does not appear that the Petitioner did something which was against the will and consent of the Informant-Victim. The motive behind the lodging of the F.I.R. is that the Petitioner, after having a physical relationship with the Informant-Victim, later on changed his mind and decided not to marry the Informant-Victim. Since the Informant-Victim is a married lady and out of anger, she lodged the F.I.R. making allegation against the present Petitioner. On a careful analysis of the factual background as well as subsequent development in the

¶27

Page 6 of 8.

¶28

present case, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients constituting an offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. are lacking in the present case.

¶29

Moreover, taking into consideration the subsequent development that the matter has been amicably settled between the Petitioner and the Informant-Victim, that a compromise has been effected between the parties with a condition that the Petitioner shall marry the Victim and that the Informant-Victim has taken a stand that she does not want to proceed further in the present case, this Court is of the view that the same is required to be considered seriously by this Court at this stage.

¶30

Since the Informant-Victim have already stated before the learned Magistrate that she does not want to proceed further against the Petitioner in the present case on the ground that they have agreed to marry and live together as husband and wife, allowing this case to continue further will not be in the interest of the Informant particularly. Further, since the Informant-Victim does not support the case of the prosecution, the chance of conviction is very bleak. Otherwise also, if the case is sent for trial, the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak. Thus, to save the valuable time of the Court as well as to protect the InformantVictim from suffering due to prolonged trial, further taking into consideration the fact that they have already compromised the matter and that the Petitioner has agreed to marry the Informant, this Court is of the considered view that to bring an end to the trial would be the best way to secure the ends of justice.

¶31

Page 7 of 8.

¶32

Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, further keeping in view the subsequent development, this Court is also of the view that the present case is a fit case where this Court should exercise its inherent power to curtail the criminal proceeding.

¶33

Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding launched against the Petitioner vide G.R. Case No.144 of 2024, which arises out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No.32 of 2024, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack, is hereby quashed. The learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack or the court in seisin over the matter shall, on receipt of this order/production of the certified copy of this order, close the proceeding in the aforesaid case in compliance of this order.

¶34

( A.K. Mohapatra)

¶35

Judge

¶36

Debasis

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 19-Nov-2025 19:52:04

¶39

Page 8 of 8.

Prabina Pradhan @ Praveen Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabina Pradhan @ Praveen Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Sahu Vs Debidutta Biswal,Principal Chief Conservator Forest,Odisha

Subimal Das Vs Ashwini Kumar Mishra, I.A.S.

Bhagaban Pradhan Vs Pradeep Kumar Jena, I.A.S.

Dillip Ku.Nayak Vs Bansidhar Nayak

Best Book Store, Bbsr Vs Academic Heights Public Schools, Keonjhar

Bharateswari Patnaik Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)