Partly allowed

Sangita Behera v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC21 Mar 2023CRLMC/110/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined the delay in FIR lodging (approx. two years) relative to the statutory limitation period under S. 468 Cr.P.C. Ruling that the order of cognizance for offences under Ss. 323/294 IPC was time-barred, but affirmed the order for the offence under S. 506 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The order taking cognizance of offences under Ss. 323/294 IPC was set aside, while the order under S. 506 IPC was affirmed and the petitioners were directed to face trial.

Sangita Behera Vs State of Orissa — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.110 of 2017

¶3

Sangita Behera and another

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

Mr. S. Dwibedi, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Orissa

¶8

…. Opp. Party Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, A.G.A.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

21.03.2023

This matter is taken up through Hybrid

¶15

1. This matter is taken up Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶16

Mr. S.K. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the Petitioners by taking this Court through the facts of the case, submits that the alleged date of occurrence is 06.04.2014, but the FIR was lodged on 24.02.2016 and, thereby, there is a delay of lodging of FIR for near about two years and, therefore, order taking cognizance of offence U/Ss. 323/294 of the IPC is barred by law of limitation in view of the provision 468 of the Cr.P.C. He, however, does not dispute about the order taking cognizance of offence U/S. 506/34 of IPC., of course, he submits that such allegation of threat after lapse of one year ten months is hardly believable.

¶17

On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, learned

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

A.G.A. does not dispute about order taking cognizance of offence U/Ss. 323/294 of IPC to be barred by law of limitation, but he, however, submits that Petitioners may be asked to face the trial for offence U/S. 506/34 of IPC.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid submissions and taking into consideration the facts as involved in this case and the lodging of FIR being admitted to be done after one year ten months and some odd days and further taking into consideration the provision of Sec. 468 of Cr.P.C., while setting aside the order taking cognizance for offences U/Ss. 323/294 of IPC, this Court affirms the said order for offence U/S. 506/34 of IPC and accordingly, direct the Petitioners to face the trial for offence U/S. 506/34 of IPC.

¶21

In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed to the extent indicated above on contest, but in the circumstance there is no order as to costs.

¶22

Priyajit

Sangita Behera v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Behera v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wipro Ltd. Vs Prasana

Anil Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

Prafulla Ku.Singh Vs State of Orissa

Pradeep Ku.Rout Vs State of Orissa

Gayadhar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Raghu Bhat Padi@Butpodia Vs State of Orissa