Disposed¶23

Victim/Informant v. State of Odisha

Criminal Procedure – Alteration/Addition of Offences (S.216 Cr.P.C.)

Orissa HC5 Dec 2025CRLMC/95/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa, CRLMC No.95 of 2025, Justice Chittaranjan Dash, order dated 05.12.2025; quashing of order dated 23.10.2024 of Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack rejecting Section 216 Cr.P.C. application; Special G.R. No.30 of 2023 / Salipur P.S. Case No.54 of 2023; earlier direction in CRLMC No.3242 of 2024 dated 11.09.2024; alteration/addition of offences premature as victim and informant unexamined, 16 witnesses examined till 07.03.2024, summons unserved; no interference warranted; disposed of with liberty to petitioner to move again in appropriate time.

What did the court decide?

No quashing; the Petitioner is left at liberty to move before the trial court in appropriate time for his grievance regarding alteration/addition of offences. ¶23

Victim/Informant Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.95 of 2025

¶3

Victim/Informant

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

MrR.K. Routray, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and another

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

Mr. S.J. Mohanty, Addl. P.P. Mr. A.K. Budhia, Advocate for O.P. No.2.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

Order No.

ORDER 05.12.2025

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 216 Cr.P.C. in connection to the Special G.R. No.30 of 2023 corresponding to Salipur P.S. Case No.54 of 2023.

¶17

In course of hearing of the application, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 drew the attention of this Court to the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by this Court in CRLMC No.3242 of 2024 wherein at paragraph-5, the Court passed the following order:

¶18

“Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the CRLMC application is being disposed of with a direction to the learned court in sisin over the matter to consider the application of the Petitioner dated 09.07.2024 under Annexure-6 filed under section 216 Cr.P.C., if the same is still pending, by providing an opportunity to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, by passing a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.”

¶19

It is not in dispute in the bar that the victim and the informant are yet to be examined in the case. From the impugned order also, it reveals that 16 numbers of witnesses have been examined till 07.03.2024 and the victim and her mother are yet to be examined. The summons issued to the mother and the victim could not be served as yet, as a result the trial could not be proceeded further.

¶20

From the impugned order there is nothing to infer that the court has closed the door declining the prayer of the Petitioner not to alter/add the offences in the event the evidence discloses so. However, it is premature to say if there could be alteration and addition of offences. Consequently, there appears no material to interfere with the impugned order. The Petitioner is at liberty to

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

move before the court in appropriate time for his aforesaid grievance.

¶23