Adolescent consensual relationships not sexual abuse, says Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court directed the petitioner to move an application before the trial court for grant of bail. (Image enhanced using AI)

Court refers to own ruling

The court referred to an earlier order passed in March 2025 by the same high court. The court had in the March last year ruling said, “The continuation of legal proceedings under these circumstances serves no legitimate purpose and would only perpetuate unnecessary hardship to both the parties.”

Findings

• The petitioner is a young man of 21 years and the girl is 17 years of age, therefore both of them are of the same age group.
• Girl’s father and she reiterated that they do not want to prosecute the petitioner anymore, as there was intervention of well-wishers as such settlement has been arrived at.
• The investigation in the present case is still going on and the survivor herself made the statement before the magistrate under Section 183 BNSS, 2023 implicating the petitioner.
• At this stage, quashing of the FIR on the basis of the affidavit filed by the father of the girl may not be expedient.
• I feel it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to move an application before the learned trial court for grant of bail.
• The trial court, shall take into consideration the judgments cited and the fact of the present case as well as by taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the father of the girl, consider the bail application.
• It is open for the trial court to verify the authenticity of the affidavit filed by the father.
• The father and the girl may also appear before the learned trial court while the bail application is decided, if so advised.
• It is expected that the trial court would do well to see that the bail application is decided as expeditiously as possible.

Background

• The case originated from and FIR registered on November 18, 2025, under Sections 137(2) (kidnapping a minor), 87 (Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.) and 64(2) (rape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to allegations of rape and allied offences.
• The case was registered on the complaint of a 17-year-old girl, who alleged that the 21-year-old youth had induced her to travel with him on the promise of marriage and established physical relations with her.
• According to the prosecution, the girl travelled with the petitioner between November 11 and 15, 2025, stayed at different places including a lodge and relatives’ houses.
• She faced difficulties after the petitioner’s family intervened.
• Her statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 164 CrPC) reiterated the allegations during investigation.
• Later, the girl’s father filed an affidavit before the high court stating that the FIR had been lodged due to “misunderstandings, emotional distress and confusion” and that both families had resolved the dispute through the intervention of elders.
• The victim and her father expressed no objection to quashing of the proceedings and asserted that the girl was in a stable emotional condition.

Arguments

• Advocate S Sourav, appearing for the petitioner argued that the case involved a consensual adolescent relationship, not sexual exploitation, and that continuing criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
• He contended that courts must carefully assess the context, the victim’s own statement, and the proximity of age between the parties, so as to avoid perversity of justice that results in incarceration of young men despite the consensual nature of the relationship.
• Additional Standing Counsel S Devi, opposing the plea, submitted that the investigation was still ongoing and the victim had initially supported the prosecution version before the magistrate.