Disposed¶23

Swadesh Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Sept 2025CRLREV/377/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRLREV No.377 of 2025; R.K. Pattanaik, J.; order dated 09.09.2025; criminal revision against cognizance order; false FIR allegation; prima facie case on chargesheet; no piece meal trial in revision; discharge liberty during enquiry; CT Case No.455 of 2019; Sahidnagar P.S. Case No.60; J.M.F.C.(III), Bhubaneswar; Family Court Jajpur proceedings; Swadesh Nayak v. State of Odisha.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of; impugned cognizance order (Annexure-1) affirmed, with liberty to the petitioner to demand discharge during enquiry unless charge is already framed, such application to be considered by the learned J.M.F.C.(III), Bhubaneswar in CT No.455 of 2019 according to law. ¶23

Swadesh Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of cognizance dated 19th April, 2025 (Annexure-1) passed pursuant to the chargesheet in CT Case No.455 of 2019 is liable to be interfered with and set aside on the ground that the FIR lodged by opposite party No.2 is false.

¶16

Court's answer

The truthfulness or otherwise of the FIR and the allegations contained therein are to be looked into by the learned court below during enquiry and trial; there cannot be a piece meal trial in revision to consider whether the allegations are out rightly false.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

On the FIR (Annexure-2) and the facts alleged therein, read with the chargesheet (Annexure-8), a prima facie case is made out and the impugned order of cognizance dated 19th April, 2025 (Annexure-1) does not deserve any interference.

¶20

Key takeaways

The revision petition stands disposed of; the impugned order at Annexure-1 is affirmed, with liberty to the petitioner to demand discharge during enquiry unless charge is already framed, any such application to be considered by the learned J.M.F.C.(III), Bhubaneswar in connection with CT No.455 of 2019 according to law.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRLREV No.377 of 2025) against order of cognizance dated 19th April, 2025 (Annexure-1) in CT Case No.455 of 2019 arising out of Sahidnagar P.S. Case No.60, registered on the FIR (Annexure-2) of opposite party No.2 for an incident dated 30th January, 2019. Petitioner contended the FIR was false, the parties being estranged and living separately since 2010, with other proceedings pending including before the Family Court, Jajpur. Held: the truthfulness or otherwise of the FIR and the allegations therein are to be examined by the learned court below during enquiry and trial; there cannot be a piece meal trial to declare allegations outrightly false at the revision stage; a prima facie case was made out on the FIR and the chargesheet (Annexure-8); the cognizance order does not deserve interference and is affirmed. Revision disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to demand discharge during enquiry unless charge is already framed; any such application to be considered by the learned J.M.F.C.(III), Bhubaneswar according to law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.377 of 2025

¶3

Swadesh Nayak …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. S.K. Dwivedy, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State Of Odisha & another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate

¶9

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

09.09.2025

Order No.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶15

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 19^th April, 2025 as at Annexure-1 in CT Case No.455 of 2019 on the grounds stated therein.

¶16

It is submitted to the Court by Mr. Dwivedy, learned counsel for the petitioner that a false FIR was lodged by the informant, namely, opposite party No.2, which has led to the registration of the case and ultimately, filing of the chargesheet as per Annexure-8. It is further submitted that the parties are at loggerheads for quite some time and staying separately since 2010 but with such allegations as per Annexure-2, the case has been registered against the petitioner and therefore, the order of cognizance i.e. Annexure-1 pursuant to the chargesheet received is liable to be interfered with and set aside.

¶17

Recorded the submission of Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, according to whom, no

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

wrong or any illegality has been committed by the learned court below while taking cognizance of the alleged offences as per Annexure-1.

¶20

Gone through the FIR i.e. Annexure-2. Referring to the e-mail communication between the parties as at Annexure-3, Mr. Dwivedy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conduct of opposite party No.2 was such and with false allegations made, the report was lodged by her. From Annexures-4, 5 and 6, the Court finds that other proceedings are/were pending before different courts including the learned Family Court at Jajpur. As regards the incident dated 30^th January, 2019, the report was lodged by opposite party No.2 and accordingly, Sahidnagar P.S. Case No.60 was registered under the alleged offences and at last, the chargesheet as per Annexure-8 was filed. No specific grounds have been advanced except the conduct of opposite party No.2 alleging falsehood against her. The truthfulness or otherwise of the FIR and the allegations contained therein are to be looked into by the learned court below during enquiry and trial. In other words, the Court is of the view that there cannot be a piece meal trial to consider whether the allegations are out rightly false, which should be left for a decision of the learned court below for being examined during enquiry and trial. Having said that, the Court in view of the FIR i.e. Annexure-2 and the facts alleged therein reaches at a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out with the filing the chargesheet as per Annexure-8 and hence, the impugned order of cognizance dated 19^th April, 2025 at Annexure-1 does not deserve any interference.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶23

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order at Annexure-1 is hereby affirmed, however, the Court grants the liberty to the petitioner to demand discharge during enquiry unless charge is already framed in the meantime and in case, any such application is received from him, the learned J.M.F.C.(III), Bhubaneswar shall consider it in connection with CT No.455 of 2019 and to pass necessary order according to law.

¶24