Allowed

Mahendra Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Apr 2025CRLMC/783/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the F.I.R. and cognizance order in a criminal case alleging rape and abduction. The victim filed a joint affidavit affirming the dispute was settled. This Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings based on the compromise and victim's wish to discontinue.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of the F.I.R. in Sorada P.S. Case No.81 of 2019 and the corresponding G.R. Case No.169 of 2019, along with consequential proceedings.

Mahendra Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.783 of 2025

¶3

Mahendra Kumar Behera …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Umesh Chandra Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Parties Mr.Bibekananda Nayak, AGA & Mrs. Sarita Maharana, ASC & Mr. Ajit Kumar Mohanty, Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

Order No.

¶9

JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA ORDER

11.04.2025

1. Heard.

2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Sorada P.S. Case No.81 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.169 of 2019 came to be registered against the petitioner for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 493/417/109/294/323/506/34 of the IPC, pending in

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Sorada.

¶16

3. The opposite party No.2 reported to pilice alleging therein that, the present petitioner on the pretext of marrying her, kept relationship with her. On 15.05.2019, at about 3.30 A.M., she came out from her house with the accused Mahabahu @ Muria Behera (brother of the present petitioner) and Dharmendra Baliarsingh (nephew of the present petitioner). They took her to some place. The petitioner kept her in a house of his relative and forcibly raped her giving assurance of marriage. Then both of them lived together and kept physical relationship several times. On 20.05.2019 the petitioner left the victim at the house of his relative and did not return. On 21.05.2019, she reached at Sorada. The informant went to the house of the petitioner and on his query, the mother of Nalita abused the informant in obscene language and assaulted her by means of kick and fist blows and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the F.I.R is registered.

¶17

4. After the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed in the present case on 30.11.2021 for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 366/376(2)(n) of the IPC.

¶18

5. During the investigation, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. The learned State Counsel has placed on record the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of

¶19

Page 2 of 6

¶20

the Cr. P.C. Reading of the entire evidence reveals that the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 were in relationship. They were meeting regularly. The petitioner, on the promise of getting married with her, had kept relationship with her. When the villagers came to know about this, the F.I.R. has been filed against the petitioner.

¶21

6. After the charge sheet is filed, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence. However, charges have not yet been framed as yet and the trial has not been commenced. At this stage, the parties have entered into settlement on the intervention of the village gentries and the well-wishers. On the basis of the said settlement terms, the present petitioner has been filed for quashing of the proceeding.

¶22

7. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 are present in the Court today. They are being represented by their respective counsel and being identified by them. They have also filed the photocopies of their respective Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record.

¶23

8. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 have filed joint affidavit before this Court dated 04.04.2025, inter alia , stating as under:

¶24

“That, both the parties do hereby solemnly affirm & state that they have signed this Settlement in the form of Affidavit as follows:-

¶25

1. That, the 2nd Party/Opp. Party No. 2 lodged an FIR before the Inspector-In-Charge, Sorada PS alleging against the Petitioner/1" Party on 23.05.2019 at

¶26

Page 3 of 6

¶27

about 6 P.M which was registered as P.S Case No.81/2019 u/s 493/ 417/ 109/ 294/ 323/ 506/34 IPC corresponding to G.R Case No. 169 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C, Sorada. (Annexure-1, Page-15 to 19).

¶28

2. That, basing on the aforesaid allegations as per the F.LR story, investigation was conducted & ultimately the Final Form was submitted before the learned JMFC, Sorada, Ganjam on 30.11.2021 in Final Form/Charge sheet No. 375 & accordingly vide Order dated 07.12.2021, cognizance was taken against the Petitioner. Accordingly the First Party filed the aforesaid CRLMC No. 783/2025 for quashing of the F.I.R dated & Order of Cognizance.

¶29

3. That, both the Petitioner (1" Party) & Opp. Party No. 2 (2nd Party) are belongs to the same village and both the families are known to each other. After lodging of the F.I.R & registration of G.R Case & submission of final form, both the family members sat together & settled the dispute amicably on 4th March, 2025 in their village and unanimously decided not to proceed further in the aforesaid G.R Case No. 169 of 2019 arising out of Sorada P.S. Case No. 81 dated 23.05.2019.

¶30

4. That, on basis of the settlement made, the Opp. Party No. 2 (2nd Party) appeared before this Hon'ble Court on 11.03.2025 in the CRLMC No. 783/2025 through her Advocate Sri Ajit Kumar Mohanty & his associates. The submissions were also made by both the parties that they have entered into a settlement outside the Court and not to proceed with Criminal Proceeding i.e. G.R Case No. 16/2019.

¶31

5. That, it is relevant to mention here that as per the amicable settlement made between the parties, it has been decided that none of the parties will file any further legal proceeding in any court of law against the other party & the dispute involved in the G.R Case No. 169 of 2019 in any manner whatsoever & all the legal cases shall be withdrawn/will be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. The Parties have decided for submission of this Joint Affidavit in the form of Settlement before this Hon'ble Court for quashing of the F.I.R & Criminal Proceeding i.e. G.R Case no. 169/2019. This Settlement has been made without any duress nor any compulsion in any manner

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

whatsoever & intended to lead a peaceful life by both the parties.

¶34

6. That, this Joint Affidavit/Settlement has been prepared & both the parties have signed the same in presence of their respective Advocates for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶35

7. That, in the interest of justice & fair play, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept the Joint Affidavit/Settlement as a part of the record & accordingly pass necessary orders quashing the F.I.R.”

¶36

9. The opposite party No.2-victim, who is present in the Court today, on the query from the Court, states that she wants to move on in her life. So she does not want to continue the relationship with the petitioner anymore. She further submits that pendency of this case is causing stress in her life as a result of which she is not able to concentrate in her carrier. Hence, she wants to put a quietus to the same. 10. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mrs. Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1-State submits that reading of the materials placed on record by way of the charge sheet reveals that the relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 were consensual. They have now settled the dispute. The opposite party No.2 has filed the joint affidavit before this Court even before the Court, the opposite party No.2 has expressed her desire to discontinue the criminal prosecution initiated by her against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no

¶37

Page 5 of 6

¶38

legal impediment in quashing the present F.I.R.

¶39

11. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have settled their dispute and they have also filed the affidavit to that regard, I am inclined to allow the present petition. In the fact scenario of the present case, subjecting the petitioner to the rigors of trial is destined to be a futile exercise. The present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303; B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others , reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, therefore, the petition deserves merit.

¶40

12. Taking into consideration the aforementioned judgments, the facts of the case and submissions made at the Bar, the F.I.R. in connection with Sorada P.S. Case No.81 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.169 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Sorada and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed.

¶41

13. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

¶42

(S.S. Mishra)

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Judge

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTYSubhasis Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 12-Apr-2025 15:10:16

¶46

Page 6 of 6

Mahendra Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harihar Kharasudha Vs State

Santosh @ Sagar Panda @ Santosh Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Chitta Ranjan Sahoo@Taini Vs State of Odisha

Rajanikanta Maharana Vs State of Odisha

Mousim Akhtar Vs Mohammad Firoz Hossen

Bira Kishore Padhi Vs Riya Jessie