The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.913 of 2025 Ranjit Kumar Das @ Ranjeet Kumar Das …. Petitioner Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate -Versus- State of Orissa and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. K. Swain, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICER.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 01. 1. ORDER 20.11.2025 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order at Annexure-5 dated 10th November, 2025 passed in connection with C.T. Case No.245 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, whereby, an application under Section 250 BNSS moved by him seeking discharge from the offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS was rejected on the grounds inter alia that such a decision is against the weight of evidence on record and not in accordance with the settled position of law. 3.
Facts
Perused the FIR at Annexure-1 and a copy of the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 series filed along with the relevant documents. 4. Opposite party No.2 is the victim, who lodged the FIR i.e. Annexure-1 and as a result, Mahila P.S Case No.39 of 2025 Page 1 of 10 was registered under Section 64(2)(m) and 351(2) BNS besides Section 27 Arms Act. At the end of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner deleting the offence under Section 27 Arms Act. Before commencement of trial, the petitioner moved the application under Section 250 BNSS demanding discharge from one of the offences alleged claiming
Legal Reasoning
that no case of rape is prima facie made out punishable under
Decision
Section 64(2)(m) BNS, however, the same was disposed of by the order dated 10th November, 2025 i.e. Annexure-5, which is under challenge at present. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions, such as, Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vrs. The State of Maharashtra and another decided on 26th May, 2025 in SLP (Crl.) No.10044 of 2024 and Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag Vrs. State of Telangana and another disposed of by the Apex Court on 29th May, 2025 in SLP (Crl.) No(s).3316 of 2023 to buttress the argument that no offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS is prima facie made out and that apart, the complaint of opposite party No.2 could not have been entertained due to delay in lodging of the FIR. The decision of this Court in Manoj Kumar Munda Vrs. State of Odisha and another in CRLMC No.4485 of 2024 decided on 14th February, 2025 is also pressed into service by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel to submit that considering the nature of allegations revealed from the FIR and also the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 series, it is a case of failing to keep up a promise by the petitioner and not a false promise, hence, Page 2 of 10 offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS is not made out. The contention is that opposite party No.2 was in relationship with the petitioner and at last, the report was lodged by her alleging rape against him. Referring to statements of opposite party No.2 and her daughter, namely, Sreyashree Behura recorded under Section 180 BNSS, it is made to suggest that the relationship between the parties was in good terms till the very end and at last, the FIR i.e. Annexure-1 was lodged only after when the marriage between them did not materialize. Under such circumstances, according to Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner, no offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS is established even considering the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 series with all the relevant documents filed therewith accepted at its face value. 6. Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, would submit that no any wrong or error committed by the learned court below in rejecting the plea for discharge for the alleged offence while considering the application i.e. Annexure-4, hence, the impugned order dated 10th November, 2025 at Annexure-5 is perfectly justified. The further submission is that whether, it is a case of false promise or a promise with good intention, is a matter to be gone into during trial and hence, the petitioner, in view of the allegations contained in the FIR i.e. Annexure-1 leading to the filing of the chargesheet, can be said to have committed only an offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) BNS. Page 3 of 10 7. In so far as, delay in lodging of the FIR is concerned, the Court is not inclined to entertain any such plea at present as has been advanced by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the decision in Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag (supra), which is to be examined during trial. Rather, such a plea may appear to be insignificant for the reason that opposite party No.2 lodged the FIR only after her relationship with the petitioner deteriorated and hence, the delay is explainable. Even then also, the Court is refraining itself from commenting upon any such plea on delay leaving it open for scrutiny during trial. In so far as, decision in Amol Bhagwan Nehul (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court therein while dealing with a case under Section 376(2)(n) IPC held and concluded that a false promise to marry is alleged but in a consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State, as such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence and at last, concluded that breach of promise to marry to be termed as a false promise always and to prosecute a person for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC would be unjustified. 8. Referring to an earlier decision in State of Haryana Vrs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, the Apex Court held and concluded in the following words: “10. As demonstrated hereinabove, the ingredients of the offence under Section 376(2)(n) or 506 IPC Page 4 of 10 are not established. The present case squarely falls under categories enumerated in Para 102(5) & 102(7) as identified by this Court in State of Haryana Vrs. Bhajan Lal (supra) for the exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court so as to prevent the abuse of process of law. Para 102 reads as under: of In the backdrop the principles of the “102. interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter law XIV and of enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, sufficiently clearly channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. defined and first information (1) Where the allegations made in the the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. report or (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under Page 5 of 10 an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where uncontroverted the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted a police officer without an order of a under as Magistrate Section 155(2) of the Code. contemplated (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground the accused. for proceeding against (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or the proceeding is maliciously where instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Page 6 of 10 9. On a proper reading of the above decision in Amol Bhagwan Nehul (supra), a Court should be alive to the fact that a criminal proceeding may be manifestly attended with malafide and where any such proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the Court’s interference is necessary. Such was the view of the Apex Court, while dealing with a matter, wherein, the High Court was called upon to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Referring to the above decision, the contention of Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Court below did not exercise the power in the manner contemplated under law. In reply to the above, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State reiterates that any such plea advanced at present cannot be looked into since the conduct of the petitioner is material and it is to be examined during trial to find out and ascertain, whether, he had any such intention or had offered a genuine promise to opposite party No.2 but failed at last. 11. Considering the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 series and all other connected documents including the statements of opposite party No.2 and others, it is made to understand that the petitioner be friended opposite party No.2 and slowly relationship between them developed. Of course, in the FIR i.e. Page 7 of 10 Annexure-1, there is an allegation of rape against the petitioner in the year 2024, when he had met opposite party No.2 in connection with a case to be investigated by him. It is made to reveal from the FIR that notwithstanding the above mischief committed by the petitioner, the relationship was continued and as it appears, everything was fine, till the time, it was lodged. It is of course alleged by opposite party No.2 that the petitioner suppressed his marital status, which could be learnt later on. There are other allegations revealed from the FIR and at last, the chargesheet has been filed. The grievance of the petitioner is only against the offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS. 12. Considering the settled legal position, the Court is of the view that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is to consider all such materials and to pass appropriate orders. When any such application under Section 250 BNSS is received, the duty and responsibility of a Court becomes onerous and it is to examine all such materials on record filed along with a chargesheet to reach at a conclusion, whether, a particular offence is committed by the accused. It is not an empty formality as it has been reiterated by the Apex Court time and again and therefore, a Court does have a responsibility to properly discharge with at the time of framing charge. Whether it is a false promise of marriage from the very inception or a genuine promise and subsequently, it could not be kept and fulfilled, if it is traceable from the materials on record, should definitely be examined by a Court even at the stage of framing of charge. Page 8 of 10 13. In the case at hand, considering the FIR i.e. Annexure-1 and chargesheet at Annexure-2 series and considering the submission of Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and objection of the State, the Court is of the view that such an exercise is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice and in so far as, the learned court below is concerned, it has simply accepted the chargesheet as it is without considering any such plea advanced with reference to the case laws cited as informed to the Court. In fact, the learned Court below is required to exercise powers in accordance with law keeping in view the ratio decided by the Apex Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul (supra) and a more recent judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Munda, wherein, at the stage of taking cognizance of the offences in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed. Having regard to the settled principles of law, it would be just and proper if the learned Court below is directed to reconsider the plea for discharge for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) BNSS with reference to the chargesheet and connected materials and to take a decision at fresh, since the conclusion is that the vested power has not been exercised in a manner contemplated under law. 14. Accordingly, it is ordered. 15. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with a direction to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Page 9 of 10 Khurda at Bhubaneswar to reconsider the application i.e. Annexure-4 moved under Section 250 BNSS restored to file received in connection with the C.T. Case No.245 of 2025 and thereafter, upon a proper hearing with notice to opposite party No.2 to pass appropriate orders keeping view of the observations made herein above and the settled position of law highlighted upon by the Apex Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul (supra). As a necessary corollary, the impugned order at Annexure-5 dated 10th November, 2025 is hereby set aside for compliance of the direction as aforesaid followed by an order at the earliest preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 16. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. Rojina (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 21-Nov-2025 18:30:01 Page 10 of 10