Police Must Video Record And Preserve Amicable Settlements In Criminal Cases To Prevent Coercion Allegations: Orissa High Court
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Orissa, Single Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho, recently disposed of a writ petition filed by a gym member who alleged police misconduct and harassment after officers visited his residence following an oral complaint by a gym owner over negative online reviews. While declining to grant the reliefs sought, the Court noted that police facilitating amicable settlements must video record the proceedings and preserve such recordings, ensuring settlements are arrived at freely, without coercion — safeguarding both parties and the police against subsequent disputes.
The dispute arose in February 2024 when the petitioner posted adverse reviews on the Google page of a gym following a disagreement over the use of gym shoes outside the entrance area. The gym owner lodged an oral complaint at the local police station, alleging that the petitioner was deliberately posting false and damaging reviews. A General Diary Entry was made, and both parties were called to the police station. On 25 February 2024, the petitioner and the gym owner signed a written settlement, which was recorded in the station diary.
The petitioner later alleged that police personnel visited his residence, threatened him with arrest, and forced him to delete his reviews. He also complained about unauthorized circulation of his workout videos by the gym owner. His mother filed applications under the RTI Act seeking information about the police personnel allegedly deployed but was informed that no such deployment had occurred. The petitioner subsequently approached the Odisha Human Rights Commission, where the matter was disposed of in April 2025 after considering the police report. His mother’s RTI appeal was also disposed of in November 2025, with denial of CCTV footage found legally justified. The petitioner then filed the present petition seeking directions against police harassment, preservation of CCTV footage, and an independent inquiry.
Justice Savitri Ratho recorded: “No direction is required to be issued to the Police as the Police is duty bound to follow the mandate of law and cannot take illegal action against anybody let alone the Petitioner whether it is on the basis of an official or unofficial complaint.”
On the prayer for CCTV footage, the Court stated: “CCTV footage on all police stations is preserved but not indefinitely, hence so no direction can be issued now (after almost two years) for its preservation. But the Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the orders passed under the RTI Act.”
Regarding the request for an independent inquiry, the Court observed: “The OHRC is an independent body. At the instance of the Commission an enquiry has already been conducted on the allegation of the Petitioner. Therefore this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not consider this to be a fit case to direct for another enquiry.”
The Court further noted: “The OHRC has specifically observed that if the Petitioner has any grievance with regard to validity of the written settlement and seeks reopening of the matter for investigation without treating the same as ‘amicable settled’, he may approach the competent forum for reopening the case.”
On the broader issue, the Court recorded: “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.”
Finally, the Court stated: “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. 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.”
The Court directed: “As discussed above, I am not satisfied that the prayers in the writ petition should be allowed by exercising power under Article-226 of the Constitution as 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.”
“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.”
“It is open to the Petitioner to challenge the orders of the OHRC and of the State Information Commissioner and avail any alternate remedy available to him under the law. With these observations, the CRLMP is disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Debasis Debadarshan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel
Case Title: Abhijeet Acharya v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number: CRLMP No. 109 of 2026
Bench: Justice Savitri Ratho
