The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.14 of 2025 Bibekanand Atabudhi …. Petitioner Mr. Biswajit Nayak, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. Behera, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 02.07.2025 I.A. No.24 of 2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. Heard Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Instant petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision for the reasons stated therein. 3. 4. A delay of 85 days is reported as per the SR. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the pendency of CRLMC No.1103 of 2024 and in obtaining of certified copy of the order under challenge i.e. Annexure-13, delay has taken place, which is required to be condoned in the interest of justice, since, in the meantime, despite of an order dated 22nd April, 2024 passed therein, the Page 1 of 5 learned Court below has proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner. 5. Recorded the submission of Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the State. 6. Considering the facts pleaded on record and accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner towards delay, this Court is inclined to condone the same in order to facilitate disposal of the revision on merit and in accordance with law. 7. I.A. stands disposed of with the delay being condoned. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge CRLREV No.14 of 2025 02. 1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. No notice is issued to opposite party No.2, namely, the informant, as the same is not necessary and hence, hereby, dispensed with. 3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the correctness and judicial propriety of the impugned order dated 4th July, 2024 passed in connection with T.R. Case No.86 of 2021 by learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kendrapara, whereby, charge has been framed under the alleged offences including Section 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (PoA) Act as per Annexure-13. Page 2 of 5 4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order denying discharge of the petitioner dated 30th June, 2022 at Annexure-6 is under challenge in CRLMC No. 1103 of 2024 followed by Annexure-8 dated 19th January, 2024, but still learned Court below proceeded to frame charge on 4th July, 2024. It is further submitted that with an application for time as per Annexure-12, the petitioner requested for an adjournment, but the same was not entertained by the learned Court below followed by framing of charge, which is unjustified and hence, is liable to be interfered with. 5. Mr. Behera, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, justifies the impugned order i.e. Annexure-13 and submits that with the framing of charge, summons have been issued to the prosecution witnesses fixing the date to 6th and 7th of August, 2024 for trial and in the meantime, a year has gone by. It is, hence, submitted that the order of framing the charge dated 4th July, 2024, as has been directed by the learned Court below, should not be disturbed as the trial must have progressed in the meantime. In response to the above, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial has not commenced as yet, despite the framing of charge on 4th July, 2024. 6. In fact, the petitioner moved an application seeking discharge and it was followed by an order dated 30th June, 2022 as at Annexure-6 and thereafter, the order dated 19th January, 2024 i.e. Annexure-8 denying review of the decision on the ground that there are no new materials available to take a Page 3 of 5 different view and later to the above orders, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court in CRLMC No.1103 of 2024 and therein, liberty was granted to the petitioner seeking an adjournment extended from time to time as made to reveal from Annexures-9, 10 & 11. As it further appears, thereafter, the learned Court below proceeded to frame the charge on 4th July, 2024 and fixed the date of trial to 6th and 7th of August, 2024 with issuance of summons to the witnesses for the prosecution. It is claimed that since the order of discharge is under challenge in CRLMC No.1103 of 2024, in view of the liberty granted to the petitioner, learned Court below should have entertained such request for an adjournment but instead, it was followed by the impugned order at Annexure-13. Of course, there is no stay order in CRLMC No.1103 of 2024, but as the denial of discharge is challenged by the petitioner and the same is subjudice, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Court below should have avoided framing of charge allowing adjournment as was pleaded. Rightly, learned Court below did not review the order dated 30th June, 2022 whereby, the application of the petitioner demanding discharge was refused but in the humble view of the Court, it should have deferred hearing on framing of charge to a future date instead of passing the impugned order especially in view of pendency of CRLMC No.1103 of 2024. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the conclusion that the impugned order dated 4th July, 2024 as at Annexure-13 is liable to be interfered with keeping the question of framing of charge to be decided upon disposal of CRLMC No.1103 of 2024. Page 4 of 5 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 4th July, 2024 at Annexure13 by the learned Special Judge, Kendrapara in T.R. No.86 of 2021 is hereby set aside. It is directed that the learned Court below shall proceed with the trial as it was originally fixed on 6th and 7th August, 2024 and to adjourn the same awaiting receipt of decision in CRLMC No.1103 of 2024. 9. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 04-Jul-2025 11:03:49 Page 5 of 5