Allowed

Accused v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Sept 2026CRLMP/1250/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa, exercising writ jurisdiction, quashed criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act pending against petitioners. The court relied on a joint affidavit revealing that the petitioners had married, live happily, and have children, tempering the need for continued prosecution in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Order of cognizance dated 19th October, 2021 and the entire criminal proceeding including TR Case No.104 of 2021 and Special G.R. Case No.109 of 2021 are quashed.

Accused Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.1250 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010608212026

¶2

Accused & another …. Petitioners

¶3

Mr. M. Acharya, Advocate

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & another

¶6

…. Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. Bibhu Prasad Nayak, AGA Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate for Informant CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER 09.09.2026

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶12

Instant CRLMP is filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of the order of cognizance dated 19^th October, 2021 and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with T.R. Case No.104 of 2021 corresponding to Special G.R. Case No.109 of 2021 and further corresponding to Itamati P.S. Case No.41 of 2021 of the file of learned Additional Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Nayagarh on the grounds stated.

¶13

Mr. Saktidhar Mishra, learned counsel files the Vakalatnama for the informant and the same is taken on record with a direction that his name be reflected in the brief.

¶14

A joint affidavit is filed by the petitioners and wife of opposite party No.2 present in Court today and the same is also taken on record. As per the affidavit, it is made to reveal that the petitioners are at present leading a happy conjugal life and

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

in the meantime, two children have been born out of their wedlock. The mother of the victim, namely, wife of opposite party No.2 stated in the joint affidavit that they do not have any objection if the criminal proceeding in TR Case No.104 of 2021 is quashed in view of the subsequent developments having taken place after marriage of the petitioners.

¶17

Perused the FIR as at Annexure-1 series. After completion of investigation and on the chargesheet filed, the learned Special Judge, Nayagarh took cognizance of the offences including one under Sections 6 and 7 of the POCSO Act with other allied offences.

¶18

6. State’s response is recorded.

¶19

In view of the joint affidavit filed and taken on record and received by this Court today and the fact that the petitioners are already married with their marriage having taken place on 21^st May, 2021 and that the petitioners are living together and leading a happy conjugal life, this Court is of the view that in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, the criminal proceeding pending before the learned court below for enquiry and trial in connection with TR Case No.104 of 2021, should be quashed in the interest of justice as continuation of the same is likely to subject them to undue harassment having regard to the fact that they were in a relationship and though petitioner No.2 was by then a minor, eloped with petitioner No.1, hence, the missing report and later it has led to the submission of a

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

chargesheet. This Court reiterated the view that since both are settled in life accepted by their families and that the informant’s wife present today in Court admits about the same, the proceeding in connection with and pending before the learned court below corresponding to Special G.R. Case No.109 of 2021 should be brought to an end and terminated and accordingly, it is ordered.

¶22

In the result, the CRLMP stands disposed of with the proceeding in TR Case No.104 of 2021 pending in the file of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Nayagarh is hereby quashed.

¶23

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

¶24

A copy of the order be forthwith communicated to the court concerned.

¶25

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶26

T.Tudu

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 11-Sep-2026 12:06:23

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Accused v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Accused 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases