Disposed¶38

Abinash@Abhinash Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC29 Oct 2025CRLREV/685/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay allowed; criminal revision against order of cognizance; CRLREV No.685 of 2025; C.T. No.658 of 2024; J.M.F.C.-II, Bhubaneswar, Khordha; FIR Annexure-1 naming petitioner for prior slapping; chargesheet Annexure-2 against petitioner and others; earlier CRLMC No.4387 of 2024 withdrawn with liberty, disposed 20.08.2025; liberty to seek discharge at framing of charge; no expression on merits; R.K. Pattanaik, J.; Orissa High Court; 29.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned (I.A. No.970 of 2025 allowed); revision disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to claim discharge by application at the appropriate stage, to be considered by the learned J.M.F.C.-II, Bhubaneswar in C.T. No.658 of 2024 in accordance with law; urgent certified copy ordered as per rules. ¶38

Abinash@Abhinash Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.685 of 2025

¶3

Abinash @ Abhinash Nayak

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

…. Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

¶12

ORDER

¶13

29.10.2025

¶14

I.A. No.970 of 2025

¶15

Order No.

¶16

¶17

Heard Mr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.

¶18

Instant petition is filed seeking condonation of delay in presenting the revision beyond the stipulated period.

¶19

It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed CRLMC and it was allowed to be withdrawn with the liberty to file a revision, hence, delay has occasioned, which is required to be condoned in the interest of justice.

¶20

Recorded the objection of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.

¶21

Since, there has been a delay reported but in view of the fact that the petitioner had originally filed CRLMC No.4387 of

¶22

Page 1 of 3

¶23

2024 disposed of on 20^th August, 2025 and therefore, the delay, this Court is inclined to condone the same.

¶24

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶25

I.A. stands allowed with the delay being condoned.

¶26

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶27

CRLREV No.685 of 2025

¶28

¶29

Heard.

¶30

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of cognizance as at Annexure-3 passed in C.T. No.658 of 2024 by the learned J.M.F.C.-II, Bhubaneswar, Khordha on the grounds stated.

¶31

Referring to the FIR, a copy of which is at Annexure-1, Mr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner except by claiming that he had slapped the informant, a month before. It is further submitted that the allegation of torture is alleged against others and not the petitioner and therefore, the learned Court below was not right and justified in taking cognizance of the offence vide Annexure-3.

¶32

Recorded the objection of the State.

¶33

On a reading of the FIR at Annexure-1, this Court finds the name of the petitioner is mentioned therein and the mischief he had committed one month before the alleged incident

¶34

Page 2 of 3

¶35

reported by the informant. After investigation was concluded, the local police filed chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 against the petitioner and others. The petitioner was a senior of the informant and for the alleged mischief committed by him some time before the occurrence, he has been charge-sheeted.

¶36

Considering the plea of the petitioner and without expressing anything on the merits of the case, since the Court, for having no materials to examine in detail having been collected during the investigation, is of the opinion that liberty should be granted to the petitioner to raise such plea at the time of framing charge demanding discharge with an application made for the same for a decision of the learned Court below.

¶37

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶38

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with liberty allowed in favour of the petitioner claiming discharge and in case, any such application is filed at the appropriate stage, the same shall be considered by the learned J.M.F.C.-II, Bhubaneswar in connection with C.T. No.658 of 2024 and to pass orders in accordance with law.

¶39

9. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶40

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶41

Alok

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 30-Oct-2025 19:40:25

¶44

Page 3 of 3