Police Should Record Statements, Preserve Videos Of Amicable Settlements In Criminal Cases: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has recently observed that the police should record statements and preserve videos of amicable settlements between the parties in criminal cases, in order to ensure that the settlement is arrived at voluntarily at the consent of the parties, bereft of any pressure or threats. A Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho advised the police to preserve such videos, which would go a...
The Orissa High Court has recently observed that the police should record statements and preserve videos of amicable settlements between the parties in criminal cases, in order to ensure that the settlement is arrived at voluntarily at the consent of the parties, bereft of any pressure or threats.
A Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho advised the police to preserve such videos, which would go a long way in shielding the police itself against false allegations of threat or undue pressure. In the words of the Judge–
“...I would like to observe that amicable settlement and mediation is/are a laudable method(s) for settlement of disputes and misunderstandings. It is a preferred mode of settlement as it preserves relationships and clears petty misunderstanding. But an amicable settlement is supposed to be voluntary and free from pressure or threats. But the settlement has to be voluntary and without exertion of any pressure. The Police should therefore exercise restraint and be doubly sure that the settlement is voluntary and the parties involved do not feel pressurized or threatened. The 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. This would be in the interest of the parties as well as the Police Officers themselves.”
This case finds its roots back in an alleged trivial dispute over use of gym shoes by a customer outside the entrance area of a gym in February 2024. The petitioner/customer alleged that he was meted out inhuman and discriminatory treatment by the gym staff, following which he posted negative reviews on the Google page of the gym.
It was further case of the petitioner that at the behest of the gym owner, five constables came to his house and coerced him to delete the online reviews made against the gym. Being aggrieved by such conduct, the mother of the petitioner filed applications under the RTI Act seeking details of the five police personnel who had come to their house. However, it was informed to her that no FIR has even been registered over the alleged incident, nor anyone was ever deployed to meet them at their home.
The petitioner took the issue to the Odisha Information Commission ('OIC') seeking information as well as CCTV footages of the police station. But the Commission disposed of such plea on the ground that all permissible information has already been provided to him, and denial of certain CCTV footages is justified.
The petitioner submitted his grievance against the police before the DCP and the State Home Department. He also filed a complaint before the Odisha Human Rights Commission ('OHRC'). However, in the meantime a report was submitted by the DCP, that an amicable settlement had been arrived at between the parties. The petitioner disputed authenticity of such settlement. Nevertheless, the OHRC disposed of his plea giving him liberty to approach competent authority.
Thereafter, he filed a case under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court seeking to redress the same grievances raised before the OHRC. The State, at this point of time, opposed such petition accusing him of forum shopping and non-exhaustion of other efficacious alternative remedies.
Against the aforesaid factual backdrop, the Court was of the view that since an inquiry has already been conducted pursuant to the order of the OHRC, order for a fresh inquiry on the same set of facts is not warranted. So far as CCTV footages were concerned, the Court opined that the same cannot be retrieved at this delayed point of time, after a gap of two long years, as the footages are not preserved infinitely. It, however, allowed the petitioner to challenge the order of the OIC at an appropriate forum.
Taking note of the dispute regarding voluntary nature of settlement, Justice Ratho opined that the police should have recorded statements of the parties and it ought to have preserved video of such settlement, which could have easily brought a quietus to the issue.
“In the present case, 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. He has alleged that the amicable settlement was not voluntary so far as he was concerned. This could have been avoided if video recording of the settlement had been done and the video preserved. CCTV recordings may not serve the purpose always.”
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the orders of OHRC and OIC by invoking appropriate jurisdiction(s).
Case Title: Abhijeet Acharya v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No: CRLMP No. 109 of 2026
Date of Judgment: February 26, 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Debasis Debadarshan, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Addl. Standing Counsel
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 27