Court advises video documentation of settlements to prevent future disputes and allegations of coercion.
In a significant judgment delivered on February 26, 2026, the Orissa High Court, under the esteemed bench of Justice Miss Savitri Ratho, dismissed the petition filed by Abhijeet Acharya against the State of Odisha. The petitioner challenged the actions of local police officials and sought directions for independent inquiry and preservation of CCTV footage regarding an incident that occurred in February 2024.
The case stemmed from a dispute between Abhijeet Acharya and the owner of AD Fitness Gym over adverse reviews posted by Acharya. The petitioner alleged police misconduct during the subsequent investigation and sought relief through various legal forums, including the Odisha Human Rights Commission (OHRC) and the Odisha Information Commission, before approaching the High Court.
Justice Ratho, while addressing the petition, underscored the importance of amicable settlements and mediation as preferred modes for resolving disputes. The court highlighted that such settlements must be voluntary and free from pressure or threats. To prevent future allegations of coercion, the court recommended that settlements be properly documented through video recordings, ensuring transparency and safeguarding the interests of all parties involved, including law enforcement officers.
The court further noted that Acharya and his mother had approached multiple forums, including the OHRC and the State Information Commission, and had not challenged the orders passed by these authorities. Emphasizing the availability of alternate remedies, the court declined to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Ratho observed that the police are obligated to act within the bounds of the law and cannot take illegal actions based on unofficial complaints. The court also stated that CCTV footage at police stations is preserved but not indefinitely, making it unfeasible to issue preservation orders two years after the incident.
In its conclusion, the High Court reiterated the need for voluntary settlements free from duress and recommended that police ensure settlements are documented through video recordings. This, the court noted, would prevent future disputes and protect the integrity of the process.
The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in promoting fair and transparent dispute resolution practices while upholding the rights and dignity of individuals involved.
Bottom Line:
Amicable settlement and mediation should be voluntary, free from pressure or threats, and properly documented, including video recording of such settlements to avoid future allegations of coercion or force.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 161 of Cr.P.C, Section 164 of Cr.P.C, Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C
Abhijeet Acharya v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc id # 2861753
