Disposed¶22

Ranju Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Feb 2026CRLREV/116/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.; criminal revision against rejection of discharge; FIR is not an encyclopedia; petitioner not a named accused in FIR; injured witness Sanatan Mohanty specifically named the petitioner; corresponding injury report; case and counter case; political dissension; parrot-like repetitions of witness statements; State of Orissa vrs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568; Addl. Session Judge, Odagaon; S.T. Case No. 110/2023; no perverse exercise of jurisdiction; revision disposed of with pending I.As.

What did the court decide?

This Court is not persuaded that there is any perverse exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Sessions Court in rejecting the Petitioner's discharge prayer, so as to warrant interference through this criminal revision. ¶21

Ranju Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.116 of 2026

¶3

Ranju Pradhan

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Mr. K. P. Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

…. Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. C. R. Swain, AGA

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

¶11

Order No.

¶12

12.02.2026

¶13

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

¶14

Assailing the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge, Odagaon in S.T. Case No. 110/2023 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner to discharge him from the offences under Sections 227 of Cr.P.C., the present Criminal Revision has been filed.

¶15

The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that by refusing to entertain the Petitioner’s prayer for discharge, the learned Sessions Court acted with material irregularity and perverse appreciation of facts. Consequently, the impugned order warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

¶16

Admittedly, the Petitioner is not a named accused in the FIR and she is in public life and because of Political

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

dissension, she has been arrayed as an accused and the case and counter case filed is a testimony to that and hence in this background, the statements of the witnesses, which according to the learned counsel for the Petitioner are parrot like repetitions, ought not to have weighed with the learned Court in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for discharge.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer.

¶20

It is trite that FIR is not an encyclopedia, moreover this Court carefully perused the statements on record including the statement of one of the injured, namely Sanatan Mohanty, who has specifically named the Petitioner and also the corresponding injury report.

¶21

On considering the same, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vrs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, which has also been referred to by the learned Trial Court, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there is any perverse exercise of jurisdiction, so as to warrant interference of this Court in entertaining this criminal revision.

¶22

Accordingly, the criminal revision along wit the pending I.As., if any, stands disposed of.

¶23

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶24

Jina

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: JINA DIGAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:51:16

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Ranju Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranju Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nilakantha Mali Vs State

Manaswini Jena Vs Binayak Mohapatra

Sabitri Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Saroj Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Parthasarathi Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Naik Vs State of Odisha