Orissa High Court: In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench of Savitri Ratho, J., held that amicable settlement and mediation are laudable and preferred modes of resolving disputes as they preserve relationships and clear misunderstandings. The Court stressed that such settlements must be voluntary and free from pressure or threats. The Court further underscored that police officers should exercise restraint and ensure that parties do not feel coerced, while also directing that video recordings of settlements and statements of parties be preserved to safeguard both the individuals involved and the officers from later allegations of force or intimidation.
Background
The petitioner alleged harassment by police officials following a dispute with a gym owner over a trivial issue relating to wearing gym shoes outside the entrance. He contended that five constables visited his residence, abused and threatened him, and forced deletion of his reviews. He further alleged that his workout videos were circulated without authorisation.
The petitioner argued that the amicable settlement relied upon by the authorities lacked signatures, witnesses, and legal formalities. He sought directions against police misconduct, preservation of CCTV footage, and an independent enquiry.
However, the State submitted that the petitioner had already approached the Odisha Human Rights Commission (OHRC) and the State Information Commission (SIC), both of which had passed detailed orders, and without challenging those orders, the petitioner had now approached the Court seeking similar reliefs.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the OHRC had specifically observed that if the petitioner had any grievance regarding the validity of the written settlement, he could approach the competent forum for reopening the case. It was emphasised that since the incident is of the year 2024 and the petitioner and his mother have approached other fora and authorities in the meanwhile and alternate remedies are available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievances by challenging the orders of the authorities.
The Court highlighted that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the orders of OHRC and of SIC and avail any alternate remedy available to him under the law. The Court observed that on account of a petty incident relating to use of gym shoes and some posts on Google, which the petitioner has admitted to have deleted, he has approached various fora/authority, subsequently as he was aggrieved by the manner the settlement was arrived at.
The Court noted that an amicable settlement and mediation is/are a laudable method(s) for settlement of disputes and misunderstandings and also it is a preferred mode of settlement as it preserves relationships and clears petty misunderstanding, however, an amicable settlement is supposed to be voluntary and free from pressure or threats.
The Court noted that police should therefore exercise restraint and be doubly sure that the settlement is voluntary and the parties involved do not feel pressurised or threatened. It was also observed that video recording of such settlements should therefore be separately preserved and statements of the parties recorded, so that there is no scope for any party to subsequently make allegations regarding use of force or threat and this would be in the interest of the parties as well as the police officers themselves.
Conclusion
Holding the writ petition not maintainable, the Court disposed of it with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the orders of the OHRC and SIC before the appropriate forum.
[Abhijeet Acharya v. State of Odisha, CRLMP No. 109 of 2026, decided on 26-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Debasis Debadarshan, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel
Buy Constitution of India HERE
