CRLMC No. 2431 of 2023 | High Court of Orissa at Cuttack | Savitri Ratho, J. | Judgment dated 19 January 2026. An application under Section 482 CrPC by eight accused (Umakanta @ Ramakanta Rout, Pitamber Rout, Sudhira Charan Rout, Uttam Rout, Sukanti Rout, Snehalata @ Khendei Rout, Nagen Kumar Rout, Hrusikesh Rout) challenging the cognizance order dated 28.07.2021 of the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in G.R. Case No. 664 of 2021 (Patkura P.S. Case No. 148 of 2021), taking cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 294, 323, 379, 307, 354, 354-A, 354-B, 506 and 149 IPC. FIR of 19.03.2021 by Smt. Santi Niharika Beura alleged entry into her house, dragging, abusive language, threats of rape, pressing of a crowbar on her chest, snatching of gold chain and bangles by Uttama Charan Rout and Sudhira Charan Rout, fist blows and kicks, a fractured left arm of her father-in-law Narendra Kumar Beura, and dragging by the hair, exploiting her husband's absence in the CRPF. Counsel (Mr. D.K. Sahoo) argued the allegations arose from a boundary dispute with no injuries sustained, no common intention existed, Section 307 was not made out, Sections 354/354-A/354-B were not made out against Petitioners Nos. 7 and 8, and Section 379 related only to Uttam Charan Rout and Sudhira Charan Rout; he filed the chargesheet, injury reports and Section 161 statements and relied on three decisions (Varun Bharadwaj; Khirod Kumar Dash; Abhitosh Debata), each involving remand or settlement-based quashing of Section 307 cases, which the Court found 'not helpful'. Restating the ingredients of Section 307 (act with intention or knowledge likely to cause death; hurt not necessary; injury alone not essential where a supervening circumstance intervened) and holding that intention must be inferred from the weapon, site and nature of injury and opportunity, the Court observed that although a crowbar was allegedly pressed on the informant's chest and her father-in-law's arm fractured, no injuries were detected on the informant, Nirmala Devi Beura, Hrusikesh Rout, Narendra Kumar Beura or Nagen Kumar Rout, and held the Section 307 offence not made out against the Petitioners. The contention on Sections 354/354-A/354-B and 379 was acknowledged to have some force (the Court stating Petitioners Nos. 7 and 8 are women) but left to the trial court at framing of charge; the Court declined a 'mini trial'. Counter case Patakura P.S. Case No. 150 of 19.03.2021 (Sections 341, 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC) had been returned by the I.O. vide final form no. 156 of 30.04.2021 for insufficient evidence. Disposition: CRLMC partly allowed; impugned order quashed as to Section 307 only; Registry to communicate the order to the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara.
