Babu @ Mamataj @ Mumtaj Alli Khan Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Babu @ Mamataj @ Mumtaj Alli Khan Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether, even if the materials on record are accepted at their face value, an offence under Sections 498(A)/304(B) of IPC is ex facie made out against the Petitioners (as urged in support of their discharge petition). +1 more

Court's answer

In reaching its conclusion, the Court perused the statements of CSW-1 (the Informant), CSW-2 (the father of the deceased) and independent witnesses CSW11, 12 and 13 relied on by the prosecution, and took their tenor into account along with the charge sheet on record.

Ratio / Principle

This Court is not persuaded that there is any perversity in the appreciation of the materials on record by the learned Trial Court so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

The Court finds no merit in this criminal revision; accordingly, the Criminal Revision along with the pending I.As stands disposed of.ratio¶33
The observations made herein ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioners, which has to be established in the ongoing trial in an independent manner.obiter¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Justice V. Narasingh), Order No. 03 dated 09.03.2026 in CRLREV No.106 of 2026: Sixteen Petitioners challenged, by this Criminal Revision, the order dated 08.12.2025 of the learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Crl. Tr. No.36 of 2019 rejecting their discharge petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 498(A)/323/306/304(B)/406/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Counsel for the Petitioners argued that even accepting the materials at face value no offence under Sections 498(A)/304(B) IPC was ex facie made out, that the Trial Court's appreciation was perverse, and that the Trial Court had wrongly relied on State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568. Per contra, the learned ASC submitted the matter did not merit interference. The Court perused the statements of CSW-1 (the Informant), CSW-2 (the father of the deceased) and independent witnesses CSW11, 12 and 13 relied on by the prosecution, and the charge sheet on record, and held there was no perversity in the Trial Court's appreciation warranting revisional interference; it found no merit in the revision. The Court expressly cautioned that its observations were not to be construed as any opinion on the complicity of the Petitioners, which remains to be established in the ongoing trial independently. The Criminal Revision, along with pending I.As, stands disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV No.106 of 2026

1. Babu @ Mamataj @ …. Petitioners Mumtaj Allikhan 2. Nengo @ Muntaz Allikhan

3. Sabiha Begum 4. Akhtarun Bibi

5. Hassina @ Hasina Khan 6. Samsun @ Samshun Bibi

7. Amina Bibi

8. Yasmin Begum

9. Azad Alikhan @ Azad Khan 10. Abdul Satar Khan @ Satar Khan 11. Abid Alli Khan @ Abid Khan

12. Abdul Kalam Khan @ Kalam Khan 13. Minatun Bibi 14. Mustak @ Mustaq Khan

15. Sudam Hosen @ Sudam Khan 16. Riyajat Allikhan @ Riyazat Khan

Mr. G.N. Parida, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha

…. Opposite Party

Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC

Page 1 of 4

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER 09.03.2026

Order No.

03.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

Assailing the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned 4^th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Crl. Tr. No.36 of 2019 rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge the Petitioners from the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 498(A)/ 323/ 306/ 304(B)/ 406/ 34 of IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act, this Criminal Revision has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that even if the materials on record are accepted at their face value, no offence as under Section 498(A)/304(B) of IPC is ex facie made out. Hence, asserting that appreciation of the prosecution case is perverse, it is urged that the same merits consideration in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

It is his further submission that the learned Court in seisin has wrongly relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v.

Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568.

Page 2 of 4

Per contra, learned ASC, Mr. Panigrahi, referring to the contours of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court submits that the matter does not merit any interference.

This Court perused the statements on record, inter alia, of CSW-1 (the Informant) and CSW-2 (the father of the deceased) as well as the statements of the independent witnesses i.e. CSW11,12 and 13, on which the prosecution has placed reliance.

It is apt to note that the copy of the charge sheet is on record.

On consideration of the same and taking into account the tenor thereof, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there is any perversity in the appreciation of materials on record by the learned Trial Court so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal revision.

It is needless to state that the observation made herein ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioners, which has to be established in the ongoing trial in an independent manner.

Page 3 of 4

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision along with the pending I.As stand disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH)

Judge

Soumya

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Mar-2026 09:38:12

Page 4 of 4