Disposed¶16

Ratnakar Jena v. State of Odisha

CRLMP – direction for reinvestigation sought

Orissa HC3 Sept 2025CRLMP/637/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reinvestigation direction refused; charge-sheet against deceased-accused in fatal motor accident upheld prima facie; MVI report; car No.OD-14Z9874 vs motorcycle; statements under Section 180 BNSS including eye-witness account; liberty to file complaint before Jurisdictional Magistrate; Sector-19 P.S. Case 181/2024; G.R. Case 3051/2024; S.D.J.M.(P) Rourkela; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; CRLMP No. 637 of 2025; Chittaranjan Dash, J.; order dated 03.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

No direction for reinvestigation issued; CRLMP disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of a complaint, to be dealt with in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations in the order. ¶16

Ratnakar Jena Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct reinvestigation of Sector-19 P.S. Case No.181 of 2024 (G.R. Case No.3051 of 2024), the petitioner contending that the charge-sheet against the deceased-accused is not in consonance with the MVI report and witness statements showing the car (No.OD-14Z9874) was at fault. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

On the submissions and perusal of the documents, prima facie the conclusion drawn by the police in course of the investigation cannot be faulted so as to issue a direction for reinvestigation.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is left to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of a complaint to establish its case, if any; if such complaint is filed, the court shall do the needful in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.

¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLMP — direction for reinvestigation sought — Sector-19 P.S. Case No.181 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3051 of 2024, pending before learned S.D.J.M.(P), Rourkela — road accident in which car No.OD-14Z9874 allegedly came rashly at high speed and dashed a motorcycle; accused since deceased — petitioner relied on MVI report and witness statements to contend the charge-sheet against the deceased-accused was not in consonance with the documents — State relied on statements under Section 180 BNSS, including the eye-witness account, disclosing the deceased rode the motorcycle at high speed and collided with the car — Held: prima facie the conclusion drawn by the police in course of investigation cannot be faulted so as to direct reinvestigation; petitioner may approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of a complaint, which shall be dealt with in accordance with law uninfluenced by the Court's observations — CRLMP disposed of (Chittaranjan Dash, J.).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMP No. 637 of 2025

¶3

Ratnakar Jena …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. P. K. Nayak, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. State of Odisha & Others Opp. Parties Mr. A.K. Apat, Addl. P.P.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER Order No. 03.09.2025

¶9

1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶10

By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court for a direction to reinvestigate the case in connection with Sector-19 P.S. Case No.181 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3051 of 2024 pending before the learned S.D.J.M.(P), Rourkela.

¶11

Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the statement of the witnesses, more particularly, in respect to Ratnakar Jena, Rakesh Kumar Biswal and Ranjit Nayak discloses the accident occurred was due to the fault of the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing No.OD-14Z9874 that allegedly to have come rashly in high speed and

¶12

dashed the Motor Cycle. Mr. Nayak, also drew the attention of this Court to the MVI report and contended that cumulatively it goes to show that the charge-sheet submitted against the deceased-accused to have contributed to the accident is not in consonance with the document and as such the reinvestigation is inevitable.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that most of the statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS, which includes the eye-witness account, discloses that the deceased was riding the motor cycle at high speed and colluded with the car and the spot where the damage has been caused to the car clearly reveals that the car was not at fault and it is rightly held in the charge-sheet placed in the record.

¶14

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the Parties and perusal of the documents prima facie reveals that the conclusion drawn by the police in course of the investigation cannot be faulted with so as to issue direction for reinvestigation. The Petitioner may approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of a complaint to establish its case, if any. In case such complaint is filed the court shall do the needful in accordance with the law keeping in view the materials on record not being influence by any observations made herein.

¶15

Page 2 of 3

¶16

6. Accordingly, the CRLMP stands disposed of.

¶17

(Chittaranjan Dash)

Judge

Sarbani

Page 3 of 3

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior StenographerReason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 17:44:41

Ratnakar Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratnakar Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tapas Ranjan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Parimita Mishra Vs Manoj Ahuja,Ias

Ch.Jawaharlal Patro Vs State of Orissa

Bedabyas Behera Vs State of Odisha

Bijay Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha

Juti Nahak Vs State of Odisha