RAVI KUMAR vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 606 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita).
Ravi Kumar
…. Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr …. Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC,
Mr. A.P. Bose, Adv (for O.P. No.2).
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-16.04.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-22.05.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, by way of the present petition, has prayed for quashing
of the F.I.R. as well as entire criminal proceeding in connection with
Cuttack Mahaila P.S. Case No. 126 dated 06.08.2024, corresponding to
G.R. No. 450 of 2024 pending before the learned SDJM(S), Cuttack,
instituted for the alleged commission of offences punishable under
Section 376(2)(n)/294/506/34 of I.P.C.
I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE :
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: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
(i) The petitioner, by way of the present petition, has prayed for
quashing of the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding
arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 126 dated 06.08.2024,
corresponding to G.R. No. 450 of 2024 pending before the learned
SDJM(S), Cuttack, instituted for the alleged commission of
offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 294,506 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
(ii) In January, 2024, the Informant allegedly requested the Petitioner
to marry her, whereupon the Petitioner is stated to have assured
her that he would solemnize the marriage after discussing the
matter with his parents. However, according to the Informant,
the Petitioner subsequently blocked her from all social media
platforms as well as from his contact numbers in or about June,
2024. It is further alleged that when the Informant contacted the
mother of the Petitioner, she came to know that another girl had
already been selected for the Petitioner’s marriage. The Informant
has also alleged that upon her attempting to contact the Petitioner
thereafter, his mother threatened to make certain photographs
viral on social media platforms.
(iii) It is stated that the Petitioner had already solemnized marriage in
accordance with Hindu rites and customs on 17.11.2023, and the
said marriage was subsequently registered before the competent
Marriage Authority on 13.08.2024.
(iv) It is further stated that prior to approaching the Police
Authorities, the Informant had allegedly sent an e-mail to the
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
Petitioner on 23.07.2024, demanding that he marry her, failing
which she would initiate legal proceedings against him and his
family members. It is also stated that the relatives of the
Informant had, on two occasions, visited the residence of the
Petitioner’s maternal grandfather at Neora, Patna, with a
proposal for marriage, and upon refusal thereof, allegedly
extended threats of dire consequences to the Petitioner, his
maternal grandfather, and other family members.
(v) Subsequently, on 03.08.2024 at about 8:20 P.M., the Informant
appeared before the Cuttack Mahila Police Station and submitted
a written report, on the basis of which Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case
No. 126 dated 03.08.2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 450 of 2024,
was registered for the alleged commission of offences punishable
under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, whereafter investigation was duly taken up by the Police
Authorities.
(vi) The Petitioner was arrested by the Investigating Officer on
20.11.2024 from his native place in the State of Bihar and was
thereafter produced before the Court of the learned A.C.J.M.-IV,
Danapur, Patna, which granted 72 hours’ transit remand in
favour of the Investigating Agency. Subsequently, the Petitioner
was forwarded to the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack on
23.11.2024, whereupon his application for bail was rejected and
he was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, the Petitioner
approached the Court of the learned District & Sessions Judge,
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
Cuttack seeking bail, and was ultimately enlarged on bail by the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide order dated
10.12.2024 passed in BLAPL No. 1428 of 2024.
(vii) Consequently, the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court
by way of the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking
quashing of the F.I.R. in connection with Cuttack Mahila P.S.
Case No. 126 dated 06.08.2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 450 of
2024 pending before the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack, instituted
for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections
376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as
quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner
has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present
CRLMC Application seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law.
II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE P ETITIONER :
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made
the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioner contends that the present case is a classic instance
wherein a long-standing consensual relationship between two
conscious and consenting adults has subsequently been sought to
be given the colour of a criminal offence. It is submitted that the
allegations, when examined in their entirety, disclose a voluntary
relationship between the parties and do not prima facie satisfy
the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offences.
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
(ii) It is contended that both the Informant and the Petitioner were
pursuing higher education at KIIT University and were
approximately 28 years of age at the time of lodging of the F.I.R.
The Petitioner submits that the relationship between the parties
commenced as far back as in the year 2015, pursuant to a
proposal of love made by the Petitioner and voluntarily accepted
by the Informant, and that the parties thereafter continued in a
consensual relationship over a considerable period of time.
(iii) It is further submitted that, as per the specific averments and
admissions made by the Informant herself, physical relations
between the parties were first established on Valentine’s Day, i.e.,
on 14.02.2018. The Petitioner contends that thereafter the parties
continued to share frequent physical intimacy for a prolonged
period of nearly six years, extending up to the year 2023,
allegedly on the assurance of marriage, without the Informant
lodging any complaint or grievance at any point of time during
the subsistence of the relationship.
(iv) The Petitioner submits that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged
merely as an afterthought and as a consequence of the
deterioration of the personal relationship between the parties. It
is contended that the Informant approached the Police
Authorities only after she insisted upon marriage in January,
2024, the Petitioner allegedly became incommunicado thereafter,
and she subsequently came to learn that the Petitioner was
intending to marry another woman. According to the Petitioner,
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
the criminal proceedings have thus been initiated out of personal
grievance arising from the failed relationship rather than on
account of any act constituting the alleged offences.
(v) The Petitioner has further placed reliance upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in Rajnish Singh @ Soni Versus State of Uttar
1
Pradesh & Another , to contend that in a situation where a
woman knowingly maintains a physical relationship for a
prolonged period, it cannot be said with certainty that the said
physical relationship was purely because of an alleged promise to
marry. The Court also observed that prolonged continuation of
relations over several years establishes that there was never an
element of force or deceit.
(vi) In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, the
Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously
be pleased to allow the present application and quash the F.I.R. as
well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Cuttack
Mahila P.S. Case No. 126 dated 06.08.2024, corresponding to G.R.
No. 450 of 2024 pending before the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack,
instituted for the alleged offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 294,
506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.
III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTIES :
1
(2025) 4 SCC 197
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
4. Per contra , the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made
the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this
Court and deserves to be rejected in limine.
(i) The Opposite Party submits that the Petitioner established
physical relations with the Informant without her free and
voluntary consent and solely under the false pretext and
assurance of marriage. It is contended that, despite the
Informant’s initial reluctance and her specific request to defer any
physical relationship until solemnization of marriage, the
Petitioner allegedly forced himself upon her in his hostel room on
14.02.2018 by representing that they were already engaged and
would shortly be married.
(ii) The Opposite Party further contends that the Petitioner
consistently represented the Informant as his prospective wife
and continuously led her to believe that their marriage was
certain to be solemnized. It is alleged that the Petitioner even
organised a pre-wedding celebration in the presence of friends
and well-wishers, thereby reinforcing the said representation and
sustaining the alleged deception practised upon the Informant.
(iii) It is further submitted that the Petitioner continued to assure the
Informant that he would marry her and, on the strength of such
assurances, maintained frequent physical relations with her till
the year 2023. However, according to the Opposite Party, when
the Informant insisted upon lawful marriage in January, 2024, the
Petitioner allegedly continued to give false assurances and
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
thereafter severed all communication by blocking every mode of
contact in June, 2024 upon becoming engaged to another woman.
It is further alleged that when the Informant attempted to contact
the Petitioner thereafter, he abused her in filthy language,
threatened to kill her and her father, and further threatened to
circulate their intimate photographs on social media platforms.
(iv) The Opposite Party further contends that although the medical
examination of the Informant was conducted after a considerable
lapse of approximately one year and four months from the
alleged last act of sexual intercourse, the medical report
specifically recorded that the possibility of sexual intercourse in
the recent past could not be ruled out. It is submitted that the said
medical opinion lends corroborative support to the allegations
levelled by the Informant.
(v)
The Opposite Party placed its reliance on the decision of the
2
Supreme Court in Yedla Srinivas Rao v. State of A.P, .
wherein, it was held that “ The consent which has been obtained by
the accused was not voluntary one which was given by her under
misconception of fact that the accused would marry her but that is not
a consent in law.”
(vi)
To address the issue of delay in lodging the F.I.R Opposite
Party has relied on the Judgement in the case Satpal Singh v.
3
State of Haryana wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
2
(2006) 11 SCC 615
3
(
2010) 8 SCC 714
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
recognised that the victims of sexual assault and their families
often suffer a paralyzing "stigma of dishonour," making a delay
in reporting a natural human response rather than a tactical
fabrication.
(vii) On the aforesaid grounds, the Opposite Party contends that the
materials available on record clearly disclose a prima facie case
against the Petitioner for the alleged offences. It is, therefore,
submitted that the present petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R.
and the consequential criminal proceedings is devoid of merit,
untenable in law, and liable to be dismissed.
OURT S EASONING AND NALYSIS
IV. C ’ R A :
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
6.
At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference in exercise
of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is well settled.
7. It is further a well-settled principle of law that while exercising its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the High Court ought not to embark upon a meticulous
enquiry into the reliability, admissibility, or sufficiency of the evidence
collected during investigation. The scope of interference at such stage is
inherently limited and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great
caution, and only in exceptional circumstances where continuation of
the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of
Court or where no offence is disclosed on the face of the record.
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
8. In the present case, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking
quashing of the F.I.R. as well as the consequential criminal proceedings
initiated at the instance of Opposite Party No. 2 for the alleged
commission of the offences mentioned therein.
9. In order to determine whether the alleged “consent” stood vitiated by a
“misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two essential
conditions are required to be satisfied. Firstly, the promise of marriage
must be shown to have been false from its very inception, having been
made in bad faith and without any genuine intention of being fulfilled
at the time when such promise was extended. Secondly, the said false
promise must bear a direct and immediate nexus with the woman’s
decision to engage in the sexual relationship, so as to establish that her
consent was obtained solely on account of such misconception of fact.
10.
This Court is of the considered view that the allegations made in the
present case, when examined in their entirety, prima facie disclose the
existence of a consensual relationship between the Petitioner and the
Respondent. The materials on record indicate that the parties were
engaged in a romantic relationship and shared physical intimacy since
the year 2018. However, with the passage of time, differences and
discord appear to have arisen between them, resulting in deterioration
of the relationship and eventual estrangement and separation between
the parties.
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
11. The Court also deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of in Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of
4
Maharashtra, , wherein it has been held that:
“27. It is hard to believe that the complainant, being a
highly qualified and well-placed major woman, kept on
bending to the demands of the appellant for a period of
nearly 16 years without raising any protest to any quarter
that the appellant was exploiting her sexually under the
pretext of a false promise of marriage. The prolonged period
off 16 years during which the sexual relations continued
unabatedly between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that
there was never an element of force or deceit in the
relationship.
29. In Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra,
(2024) 11 SCC 398 , this Court held that to make a man,
accused of having sexual relationship by making a false
promise of marriage, criminally liable, the physical
relationship for a prolonged period, it cannot be said with
certainly that the said physical relationship was purely
because of alleged promise made by the accused to marry
her.
38. It is trite that there is a distinction between rape and
consensual relationship. ”
12. In the case at hand, it appears from the materials available on record
that both parties remained in a relationship for a considerable and
prolonged period of time. However, upon the relationship turning
unsuccessful and the parties subsequently drifting apart, the Opposite
Party proceeded to lodge the impugned F.I.R. against the Petitioner,
that too after a substantial lapse of time. Prima facie, the circumstances
of the case indicate that the relationship shared between the parties was
4
(2025) 4 SCC 197
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
consensual in nature, maintained voluntarily over several years
without any contemporaneous allegation of coercion or force.
13.
It is also pertinent to note that the Petitioner has since solemnized his
marriage and is presently leading his matrimonial life. In such
circumstances, continuation of the present criminal proceeding, arising
out of a past consensual relationship, is likely to cause serious
disturbance and prejudice to his existing matrimonial life and family
circumstances. This Court is of the view that the criminal process ought
not to be permitted to operate in a manner which unnecessarily
disrupts a settled matrimonial relationship, particularly when the
allegations, prima facie, emanate from a failed consensual relationship
between the parties.
14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and
upon a careful and due appreciation of the materials available on
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Petition
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Petition stands allowed in the
interest of justice.
ONCLUSION
V. C :
15. In view of the foregoing analysis, and upon an anxious, careful, and
comprehensive consideration of the material facts, records, and
circumstances attendant to the present case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner,
even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not
prima facie constitute the offence alleged, particularly when the
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
materials on record overwhelmingly indicate that the relationship
between the parties was consensual in nature.
16. allowed.
Accordingly, the CRLMC stands
17.
Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated22nd May, 2026/
Page 13