Sreyanshu Mallick @ Gudu Vs State of Odisha

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶19

By filing the present application under Section 528 of BNSS, the Petitioners seek to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the F.I.R. in Naugaon P.S. Case No.10 dated 09.01.2024 under Annexure-1 and the charge sheet No.01/51 dated 08.03.2024 and the order taking cognizance dated 11.03.2024 as well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Naugaon P.S. Case No.10 of 2024, corresponding to Spl. G.R. Case No.04/2024, pending in the court of learned ADJ-cum-Special

¶20

Page 1 of 4.

¶21

Judge (POCSO), Jagatsinghpur.

¶22

The prosecution case, as culled out from the F.I.R., in short, is that the victim lodged the F.I.R. before the IIC, Naugaon Police Station on 09.01.2024, inter alia, alleging that the present Petitioner No.1, by making a promise to marry, took the victim away and committed sexual act with the victim against her will and consent. Thereafter, when the victim asked about her marriage, she was again assaulted by the Petitioner No.1 and the Petitioner No.1 threatened to kill the victim and her mother. It has also been alleged that the accused-Petitioners took the victim away and kept her in their house for six days. Thereafter, she was assaulted and driven out by the accused-Petitioner No.1 and his family members. She has further alleged that the accused-Petitioners have taken away money from the bank account of the victim, which was received from LIC on account of the death of the father of the victim. The victim has also alleged that she was constantly physically tortured and mentally harassed by the Petitioners who are using her naked photographs to blackmail her.

¶23

On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., the case was registered for commission of offence under Sections 376(2)(n)/386/506/323/34 of the I.P.C. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 376(2)(n)/506/323/363/366/109 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. Thereafter, the trial court has taken cognizance of the offences vide order dated 11.03.2024. Challenging the entire criminal proceeding as well as the F.I.R., the Charge Sheet and the

¶24

Page 2 of 4.

¶25

order taking cognizance, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present application.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that the Petitioners have challenged the entire criminal proceeding on the ground that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. He further submitted that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. He further disputed the victim’s date of birth and contended that the victim was not a minor at the time of occurrence. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners sought for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to the quashing of the criminal proceeding on the ground that on a plain reading of the F.I.R. as well as the materials collected in course of the investigation, a case under the aforesaid sections is well made out against the present Petitioners. He further contended that basing on the materials collected during investigation and filed along with the charge sheet, the trial court has already taken cognizance vide order dated 11.03.2024 under Annexure-4 to the application. Therefore, a prima facie case is made out against the present Petitioners. As such, the present application for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the same should be dismissed at the threshold.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the materials on record as well as on a careful analysis of the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court

¶29

Page 3 of 4.

¶30

found that the Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the F.I.R., Charge Sheet and order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceeding on the ground of delay in lodging of the F.I.R., on the ground that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution and that the age of the victim is disputed since she was a major at the time of occurrence of the alleged offence.

¶31

On a careful analysis of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that none of the aforesaid grounds can be considered as good grounds for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. Moreover, the grounds taken by the Petitioners can very well be raised during trial.

¶32

10 In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent power conferred under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the aforesaid criminal proceeding.

¶33

11. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed.

¶34

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

¶35

Debasis

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 22-Jul-2025 17:04:28

¶38

Page 4 of 4.