The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.490 of 2024 Amiya Ranjan Mohanty Petitioner Mr. D. Panda, Advocate …. -Versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Swain, AGA Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate (O.P. No.2) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 30.10.2025 Order No. 05. 1. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 besides
Legal Reasoning
462 and reached at the conclusion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. In support of the contention advanced justifying the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 cited a judgment in Rajeev Kourav Vrs. Baisahab and others AIR 2020 SC 909 to further contend that the truthfulness or otherwise of the statements recorded during investigation of opposite party No.2 is to be examined at the time of trial. On a reading of the aforesaid decision, this Court finds that the Apex Court interfered with the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had quashed the criminal proceeding assessing the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. But, the moot question involved herein is, whether, the learned Trial Court having taken cognizance of the entire evidence even including the statements of the victim under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. applied its judicial mind while reaching at the conclusion on the demand for discharge. 13. Without any doubt, the law is that at the time of framing of charge, elaborate discussion of evidence is to be avoided. The settled legal position is that a Court has to have a Page 5 of 8 subjective satisfaction with regard to any such offences being committed by the accused at the time of framing of charge. Even a strong suspicion is sufficient enough to frame a charge. At the time of considering discharge or framing of charge, a Court has bounden duty to examine the materials on record filed along with the chargesheet and to reach at a satisfaction regarding commission of offences by the accused without elaborate discussion of the same, an exercise, which is to be undertaken during trial. But, at the same time, it is not to be lost sight of that the Court has to discuss the materials on record justifying framing of charge for the offences alleged limited for the aforesaid purpose. The role and responsibility of a Court while exercising such jurisdiction especially while dealing with an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. needs no elaborate mention. The satisfaction of a Court considering the evidence on record before commencement of the trial is sufficient enough either to frame charge or to discharge the accused. As to the decision of the learned Court below as per Annexure-4, in the considered view of the Court, there has been no judicial application of mind as such. The decision is entirely based on the fact about the taking of cognizance of the offences without touching upon any such material evidence. It is of course to reiterate that analysis of evidence was not required but at least subjective satisfaction was needed while considering the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. One is not to be greatly influenced by the statement of the victim recorded twice for that matter nor to lay too much of emphasis with regard to improvement in her version during investigation and at the time Page 6 of 8 of recording the statement before the Magistrate. What was required for the learned Court below was to go through the materials on record and to satisfy itself and to form an opinion at the end, which is in the considered view of the Court, has not been resorted to. In fact, framing of charge is not a mere formality. The Court has an onerous responsibility to consider the entire evidence and to reach at the conclusion that a particular offence is being committed by the accused. Such an exercise does not appear to have been employed by the learned Court below. It is to be restated that the learned Court below, who was more or less influenced by the order of cognizance declined to go through the plea of any such improvement in the version of the victim in view of the second statement recorded during investigation, which according to the Court, was unnecessary. Since, no such exercise has been undertaken by the learned Court below with reference to material evidence as it was needed while considering the demand for discharge, the Court reaches at an inescapable conclusion that the jurisdiction vested has not been properly exercised and therefore, the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2024 at Annexure-4 deserves revocation with a direction to freshly examine the materials on record as against the plea advanced. This Court is of the final view that such an exercise herein in the light of allegations made against the petitioner in juxtaposition to the statements of the victim namely, opposite party No.2 is necessary to arrive at a conclusion, whether, any such offences especially under Section 376(1) IPC to have been made out against the Page 7 of 8 petitioner. Thus, the conclusion is that the impugned decision by order dated 2nd August, 2024 is required to be set at naught. 14. Accordingly, it is ordered. 15.
Arguments
Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2024 as at Annexure-4 passed in connection with Special Case No.284 of 2022 by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC), Balasore, whereby, an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. moved by him seeking discharge has been declined. 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order at Annexure-4 is not sustainable in law for the fact that the learned Trial Court did not examine, whether, the alleged offence under Section 376(1) IPC has been Page 1 of 8 made out considering the materials on record. The submission is that the rejection order dated 2nd August, 2024 i.e. Annexure- 4 is influenced by the fact that there is an order of cognizance of the offences staring at the petitioner. The further submission is that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record on the anvil of the statements of the victim, namely, opposite party No.2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and declined to take judicial notice of the fact that there has been improvement in her statement leading to the inclusion of the offence under Section 376 (1) Cr.P.C. in the chargesheet. The contention of Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction while dealing with the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and instead rejected the demand for discharge being persuaded by the order of cognizance and on the premise that any such plea as has been advanced is not to be considered at pre-trial stage. The further contention is that the latter statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. even assuming to be correct, no offence under Section 376(1) IPC has been made out, but the learned Court below did not examine the same while dealing with the demand as per Annexure-3 and for having miserably failed to exercise the jurisdiction in the manner contemplated under law, the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2024 at Annexure-4 is liable to be interfered with and set aside. 4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, on the other hand, justifies the impugned order at Annexure-4 with the submission that there is material on record Page 2 of 8 to prove the offence under Section 376 IPC being committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the victim’s statement was recorded second time during investigation and it was followed by the version before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and it prima facie proved that such an offence of rape has been committed by the petitioner. That apart, the submission is that the learned Court below did not commit any error in not considering the evidence on merit but for having satisfaction about the mischief being committed by the petitioner, hence, rightly proceeded to pass the impugned order denying discharge exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the same should not be disturbed. 5. Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State supports the contention of Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and further submits that there is no illegality committed by the learned Court below in declining such discharge considering the application i.e. Annexure-4, as there has been material on record including the statements of the victim and hence, rightly, the chargesheet has been filed and therefore, the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2024 i.e. Annexure-4 needs no interference. 6. Perused the FIR as at Annexure-1 and it reveals that on receiving such a report, Sahadevkhunta P.S. Case No.327 dated 27th November, 2020 was registered under Section 451, 354-A and 509 IPC. Upon closure of investigation, the chargesheet is filed under the alleged offences besides Section 376(1) IPC, whereafter, the petitioner moved the application demanding Page 3 of 8 discharge in respect of offences under Sections 354-A & 376(1) IPC but it has resulted in passing of the impugned order at Annexure-4. 7. Also perused the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., a copy of which is at Annexure-3. 8. 9. Gone through the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4. Admittedly, the victim’s statements are recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copies of which are at Annexure-5 series. That apart, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as earlier mentioned. A copy of the said statement before the Magistrate is produced by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and the same is also gone through. 10. In course of hearing, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that charge is already framed. In reply to the above, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial has not commenced. 11. The question is, whether, any such offences under Sections 354-A and 376(1) IPC are prima facie made out against the petitioner to make him face the trial? According to the learned Court below, any such plea of the petitioner is not to be considered before commencement of the trial. The further conclusion is that at the stage of framing of charge, it is not judicious to hold any such improvement made by opposite party No.2 with reference to her second statement recorded during investigation and followed by the one before the Page 4 of 8 Magistrate. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no any satisfaction reached at by the learned Court below for a conclusion about the alleged offences being committed by the petitioner. 12. Learned Court below referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vrs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & others 2023 LiveLaw SC
Decision
In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order at Annexure-4 passed in Special Case No.284 of 2022 by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC), Balasore is hereby set aside with a direction to freshly consider the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. which is, hence, restored to file followed by an order as per and in accordance with law keeping in view the settled legal position and the observations made hereinabove. It is further directed that till such time, the above direction is complied with by a decision on discharge, the trial before the learned Court below shall be put on hold. 16. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules in course of the day and upload the same in the High Court’s website forthwith. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 30-Oct-2025 20:11:01 Page 8 of 8