KAUSHAL PRADHAN 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. 5228 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita).
Kaushal Pradhan …. Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha …. Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Soumya Jyoti Biswal, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mrs. Sarita Moharana, ASC
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, The Petitioner, by way of the present petition, has
assailed the legality and validity of F.I.R. No. 382 of 2021 dated
28.12.2025, corresponding to S.T. Case No. 129 of 2025 pending before
the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack (arising out of G.R. Case No. 2179
of 2021), whereby the Petitioner has been arrayed as an accused and is
sought to be prosecuted for the alleged commission of offences
punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
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 present case arises out of Jagatpur P.S. Case No. 382 of 2021
dated 15.09.2021, registered under Section 306 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was preceded by an enquiry
in UD Case No. 28 of 2021. It is stated that the FIR came to be
registered pursuant to the recovery of the dead body of one
Tusharkanta Sahoo @ Tushar, aged about 19 years, a student,
which was found floating near Gate No. 18 of Jobra Barrage on
05.08.2021.
(ii) The prosecution version reveals that, during the COVID-19
lockdown period, the deceased had developed intimacy with a
girl namely Bulbul @ Smruti Moharana, who was also pursuing
+2 second year studies in the same college as that of the deceased.
(iii) It is further stated that during a visit to the deceased’s house in
February, 2021, the deceased and the said Bulbul @ Smruti
Moharana developed physical intimacy. It is further stated that
prior to the said relationship, Bulbul had been in a relationship
with one Sonu @ Soumya Ranjan Bhuyan, which had come to an
end in March, 2020 due to a misunderstanding.
(iv) It is further stated that in March, 2021, the said Sonu @ Soumya
Ranjan Bhuyan suddenly resumed communication with Bulbul @
Smruti Moharana. However, upon coming across photographs of
Bulbul and the deceased, Sonu confronted them, whereupon it
was revealed that the physical relationship between the deceased
and Bulbul was consensual in nature, contrary to Bulbul’s initial
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
assertion that the deceased had forced her. It is further stated
that, thereafter, Sonu started avoiding Bulbul.
(v) It is further stated that, after Sonu @ Soumya Ranjan Bhuyan
started avoiding Bulbul @ Smruti Moharana, she allegedly held
the deceased responsible for the same and began insisting that
the deceased should confess before Sonu and others that he had
forced her into the alleged act.
(vi) It is further stated that, as Sonu @ Soumya Ranjan Bhuyan
continued to avoid her, Bulbul @ Smruti Moharana allegedly
started blackmailing the deceased and threatened to lodge a false
FIR against him. It is further alleged that she also posted a
statement on her WhatsApp status to the effect that Tushar had
spoiled her life, which subsequently came to be circulated among
their mutual friends.
(vii) It is further stated that, despite continued avoidance by Sonu @
Soumya Ranjan Bhuyan, Bulbul @ Smruti Moharana allegedly
resorted to blackmailing the deceased and threatened to lodge a
false FIR against him. It is further alleged that she also posted a
statement on her WhatsApp status alleging that Tushar had
spoiled her life, which came to be circulated among their mutual
friends.
(viii) It is further stated that on 03.08.2021, a meeting was held at the
Indoor Stadium, which was attended by the deceased, his friend
Jyoti, Bulbul @ Smruti Moharana, the present Petitioner
(Kaushal), Bulbul’s elder sister (Sriyasweeni), and Sriyasweeni’s
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
boyfriend (Jubu @ Dibya Ranjan Behera). It is stated that during
the said meeting, the deceased was asked to tender an apology to
Sonu @ Soumya Ranjan Bhuyan, which he accordingly did
through a text message.
(ix) It is further stated that on 03.08.2021, a meeting was held at the
Indoor Stadium, which was attended by the deceased, his friend
Jyoti, Bulbul @ Smruti Moharana, the present Petitioner
(Kaushal), Bulbul’s elder sister Sriyasweeni, and Sriyasweeni’s
boyfriend Jubu @ Dibya Ranjan Behera. It is stated that during the
said meeting, the deceased was directed to apologize to Sonu @
Soumya Ranjan Bhuyan, and accordingly, he tendered an
apology through a text message.
(x) On 03.08.2021, a meeting was held at the Indoor Stadium, which
was attended by the deceased, his friend Jyoti, Bulbul @ Smruti
Moharana, the present Petitioner (Kaushal), Bulbul’s elder sister
Sriyasweeni, and Sriyasweeni’s boyfriend Jubu @ Dibya Ranjan
Behera. It is stated that during the said meeting, the deceased was
asked to tender an apology to Sonu @ Soumya Ranjan Bhuyan,
which he accordingly did by sending a text message.
(xi) During the said confrontation, the present Petitioner,
Sriyasweeni, and Jubu @ Dibya Ranjan Behera questioned the
deceased with regard to his alleged objectionable behaviour
towards Bulbul @ Smruti Moharana in college and for allegedly
spreading rumours. It is stated that when the deceased
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
responded by using slang and abusive language against Bulbul,
he was allegedly slapped by Jubu.
(xii) The petitioner reportedly warned the deceased that he would
face problems if he continued to trouble his sister. Thereafter,
Jubu, Bulbul, and Sriyasweeni dropped the deceased at his house.
It is alleged by the prosecution that the deceased, suffering from
severe mental depression as a result of the incident, took his
sister's vehicle to Dhabaleswar Bridge and committed suicide by
jumping into the river.
(xiii) Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was
submitted on 24.11.2021 against the petitioner and other co-
accused persons under Section 306/34 IPC. The petitioner had
been arrested and forwarded to the court earlier on 27.09.2021.
(xiv) The present Petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the
said F.I.R. as well as the consequential criminal proceedings
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 case of the Petitioner is that the impugned the genesis of the
incident lies in a personal and emotional dispute between the
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
deceased and one Bulbul @ Smruti Moharana, arising from their
physical intimacy in February 2021, its discovery by Bulbul's ex-
boyfriend Sonu, and Bulbul's subsequent pressure on the
deceased to apologize. It is contended that the Petitioner, being
Bulbul's brother, intervened solely to protect his sister's dignity.
A dispassionate reading of the prosecution materials, including
the FIR, charge-sheet, and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, fails to
disclose any act of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid on
the part of the Petitioner.
(ii) The Petitioner contends that during the meeting held at the
Indoor Stadium on 03.08.2021, his role was strictly limited to
questioning the deceased with respect to the alleged spreading of
rumours concerning his sister and to facilitating the tendering of
an apology by the deceased to Sonu @ Soumya Ranjan Bhuyan by
providing his contact number.
(iii) The Petitioner submits that the sole act of violence was
committed entirely by co-accused Jubu @ Dibyaranjan Behera,
and no witness has attributed any physical assault to the
Petitioner. This limited involvement is further corroborated by
the confessional statements of the co-accused persons.
(iv) The Petitioner contends that there are glaring infirmities and
contradictions in the prosecution evidence. According to the
Petitioner statements of several witnesses under section 161
Cr.P.C. are merely hearsay. Further it is also submitted that the
sole eye-witness, Jyotiranjan Mohanty, only attributes a joint
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
warning to the Petitioner, which was a generic protective
admonition prompted by the deceased's use of derogatory slang
against Bulbul, and cannot by any legal standard be construed as
instigation.
(v) The Petitioner also submits that the Petitioner's own confessional
statement, recorded by the investigating officer, is riddled with
fundamental factual errors, such as incorrectly stating the
Petitioner was in a relationship with Sriyasweeni and falsely
recording that he slapped the deceased.
(vi) The Petitioner contends that the essential ingredients of Section
306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC are conspicuously absent, as
there was no positive, direct, and proximate act of abetment.
Reliance has been placed on M. Arjunan v. State represented by
1
its Inspector of Police where in the Apex court held that "The
essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the
abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the
deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting
the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the
abetment of suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/ abetment to
commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section
306 I.P.C”.
(vii) Moreover, in the case of Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat
2
Mishra v. State of U.P. & Anr the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
categorically held that clear mens rea and an active act intended
1
(2019) 3 SCC 315
2
2024 INSC 172
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
to push the deceased into such a situation that they commit
suicide is necessary to convict a person under section 306 IPC.
(viii) The Petitioner also relies on the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of
3
Chhattisgarh to establish that words uttered in the fit of anger or
emotion without intending consequence of suicide to follow
cannot be treated as instigation. Further reliance has been placed
4
on the case of State of Kerala v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair & Ors.
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that "Abetment involves
a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person
in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained."
(ix) The petitioner further contends that there is a complete absence
of proximate cause connecting the Petitioner's conduct to the
suicide. The prosecution’s own case reveals a series of
independent factors which subjected the deceased and operated
directly upon the deceased's mental state long before and entirely
independent of the Petitioner. Further the witness statements
reflect that the deceased felt tortured by Bulbul, Sriyasweeni, and
Jubu, without implicating the Petitioner as a source of his
distress.
(x) The petitioner maintains that the investigating officer
mechanically arrayed all persons present at the meeting as
accused persons, violating the fundamental principle of personal
criminal liability. Allowing the criminal proceedings to continue
3
(2001) 9 SCC 618
4
(2015) 9 SCC 639
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
against the 24-year-old Petitioner, who has since secured
employment, would jeopardize his livelihood and amount to a
gross abuse of the process of the Court.
III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTIES :
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 contends that the petitioner's active and
conscious participation in acts of instigation clearly satisfies the
essential ingredients of the alleged offence.
(ii) It is contended by the Opposite Party that that the tragedy was
the culmination of continuous mental harassment, coercion, and
threats inflicted upon the deceased by co-accused Bulbul and
others. After a consensual physical relationship between Bulbul
and the deceased came to light, Bulbul, in order to safeguard her
own interests, falsely alleged misconduct and persistently
pressurized the deceased to confess to a fabricated story before
her ex-boyfriend, Sonu. Despite Sonu acknowledging that the
deceased was not at fault, Bulbul subjected the deceased to
relentless blackmail, threatening him with a false FIR and
defaming him publicly through WhatsApp status messages
circulated among their peers.
(iii) It is further contended that the witness statements, as well as the
petitioner's own statement, reveal that the petitioner (Kaushal
Pradhan) actively confronted and questioned the deceased,
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
pressurized him to apologize, threatened him with a police
complaint, and physically assaulted him by slapping him thereby
aggravating the mental trauma of the deceased which is evident
from his last text message that he had sent to the ex-boyfriend of
Bulbul.
(iv) On the same day being unable to withstand the concerted
humiliation and pressure, the deceased took the extreme step of
committing suicide shortly thereafter at 6:23 P.M. by jumping
into the Mahanadi River near Dhabaleswar Bridge.
(v) To buttress the argument that these acts constitute abetment
under Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, the Opposite Party places
heavy reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Chitresh
5
Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) wherein it
was held in Para 19 that:
“..where the accused, by words, deeds or conduct, keeps on
irritating, pressurizing or forcing the deceased and thereby
provokes or compels him to take the extreme step, the
presence of mens rea being implicit in such conduct creates
such circumstances that the deceased is left with no other
option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be
inferred. It has further been held that abetment is made out
where the accused, by words, deeds or conduct, keeps on
irritating, pressurizing or forcing the deceased and thereby
provokes or compels him to take the extreme step, the
presence of mens rea being implicit in such conduct.”
(vi) Further the Opposite Party places reliance on the judgement of
this Hon’ble Court in the case of Manish Agarwal v. State of
5
(2009) 16 SCC 605
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
6
Odisha wherein it was held that whether the specific conduct
of the accused persons amounts to instigation is a question of
fact that can only be determined from the evidence adduced
during trial and not at this preliminary stage.
(vii) Finally the Opposite Party submits that that the present
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is wholly misconceived on
both facts and in law, and thus deserves to be dismissed in
limine .
IV. C OURT S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS :
’
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.
8.
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.
6
MANU/OR/0726/2023
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
9. In the present case, the alleged criminal act is stated to have occurred in
such a manner as to have culminated in the unfortunate death of the
victim by suicide. It is, therefore, imperative to ascertain a proximate,
live and direct nexus between the alleged acts attributed to the accused
and the consequential act of suicide committed by the deceased, so as
to determine the existence or otherwise of the requisite mens rea and
the degree of culpability, if any, arising therefrom. The mere occurrence
of suicide, in isolation, would not ipso facto attract criminal liability
unless it is established that the acts of the accused were of such nature
as to have abetted, instigated or facilitated the commission of suicide
within the meaning of the applicable penal provisions.
10. In the present case, it is alleged that the Petitioner began attributing
blame to the deceased and persistently pressurised him to falsely
confess before Sonu @ Soumya Ranjan Bhuyan and others that he had
forcibly implicated Bulbul @ Smruti Moharana in the alleged incident.
It is further stated that, under such continued pressure and influence,
the deceased tendered an apology before Sonu as well as the mother of
Bulbul. It is, however, stated that Sonu himself is alleged to have
acknowledged that the deceased was not at fault, thereby casting doubt
on the alleged culpability attributed to the deceased.
11.
However, all these aspects cannot be conclusively determined at this
preliminary stage of the proceedings, as the same are essentially
matters which require thorough adjudication on the basis of evidence
led by both parties during trial. It is only upon a full-fledged trial, with
proper appreciation and evaluation of oral and documentary evidence
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
adduced by the prosecution as well as the defence, that the truth can be
ascertained in its correct perspective. The complete chain of causation
between the alleged acts and the consequential outcome, if any, can be
established only after a meticulous scrutiny of evidence, thereby
enabling the Court to arrive at a just and lawful conclusion in
accordance with settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and upon
due consideration and appreciation of the materials available on
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Petition
is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the
Petition stands dismissed.
ONCLUSION
V. C :
13. 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.
14. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed.
15. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
nd
Dated 22 May, 2026
Page 13