Kanta Bharasagar v. Manoranjan Singh Deo

Orissa HC22 Jun 2026CRLREV/219/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Amendment 2015); commission of offence in public view; final form by Investigating Agency absolving accused; rejection of prayer for continuance of proceeding; protest petition in the nature of complaint case not entertained; allegations civil in nature; civil and criminal cases continue simultaneously; Section 202 Cr.P.C. statement of complainant; Gunjan alias Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 834 para 9.1; Section 294/506/34 IPC; 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(va) SC & ST (POA) Act; CRLREV No.219 of 2026 Orissa High Court; 1CC No.01 of 2025 Balangir; CS No.235 of 2021.

What did the court decide?

Even assuming the stand taken by the defence, civil and criminal cases can continue simultaneously. ¶¶23

Kanta Bharasagar Vs Manoranjan Singh Deo — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17.02.2026 of the Special Court rejecting the Petitioner's prayer for continuance of the proceeding, in the light of the final form submitted by the Investigating Agency absolving the Opposite Parties, should be interfered with by way of this Revision. +2 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

On the anvil of the law laid down in Gunjan alias Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 834 (particularly paragraph-9.1), this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court in seisin.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

Even assuming the stand taken by the defence, civil and criminal cases can continue simultaneously.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

On perusal of the complainant's statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in its entirety, there is nothing on record to support the Petitioner's stand that the alleged occurrence giving rise to liability of the Opposite Parties under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) was committed in public view.ratio¶¶23
Non-entertainment of this Revision will not have any effect on the rights of the parties being agitated in CS No.235 of 2021, where the Petitioner is the defendant.obiter¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (V. Narasingh, J.), CRLREV No.219 of 2026 — Kanta Bharasagar (petitioner) v. Manoranjan Singh Deo, Jayant Kumar Singh Deo, Biswajit Singh Deo, Prakash Kumar Singh Deo and Akash Singh Deo (opposite parties); order dated 22.06.2026. The petitioner assailed the order dated 17.02.2026 of the learned P.O., Excl. Spl. Court under S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act, Balangir in 1CC No.01 of 2025 rejecting his prayer for continuance of the proceeding in the light of the final form submitted by the Investigating Agency absolving the Opposite Parties of offences under Section 294/506/34 IPC r/w 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act. While conceding that, even assuming the defence stand, civil and criminal cases can continue simultaneously, the Court found on perusal of the complainant's Section 202 Cr.P.C. statement that nothing on record showed the alleged occurrence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) was committed in public view; relying on Gunjan alias Girija Kumari and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 834 (paragraph-9.1), it found no infirmity in the impugned order and disposed of the Revision, clarifying that its non-entertainment would not affect the parties' rights in CS No.235 of 2021, where the Petitioner is the defendant.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.219 of 2026

¶3

Kanta Bharasagar

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. P.R. Pattnaik, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

1. Manoranjan Singh Deo

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

2. Jayant Kumar Singh Deo

¶10

3. Biswajit Singh Deo

¶11

4. Prakash Kumar Singh Deo

¶12

5. Akash Singh Deo

¶13

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

22.06.2026

Order No.

01 .

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶18

Assailing the order dated 17.02.2026 passed

¶19

by the learned P.O., Excl. Spl. Court under S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act, Balangir in 1CC No.01 of 2025 whereby the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected for continuance of the proceeding in the light of final form having been submitted by the Investigating Agency absolving the Opposite Parties for commission of offence under Section 294/506/34 of IPC r/w 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, the present Revision has been preferred.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the complaint petition along with the initial statement

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

of the complainant submits that a clear case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) is made out. Hence, the finding of the learned Court in seisin that primarily the allegations are civil in nature for which protest petition in the nature of complaint case was not entertained, is liable to be interfered with.

¶23

This Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that even assuming the stand taken by the defence, civil and criminal cases can continue simultaneously. 5. On perusal of the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in its entirety, it is seen that there is nothing on record to support the stand of the Petitioner that the alleged occurrence for which the Opposite Parties are liable for committing an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) was committed in public view. 6. Law in this regard is no longer res integra and reference can be made in this context to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gunjan alias Girija Kumari and Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 834 more particularly paragraph-9.1 thereof.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Pattnaik, on the anvil of law laid down as above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court in seisin.

¶26

It is made clear that non-entertainment of this Revision will not have any effect on the rights of the parties which is being agitated in CS No.235 of 2021 where the Petitioner is the defendant.

¶27

Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of.

¶28

(V. Narasingh) Judge

¶29

Ayesha

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 23-Jun-2026 14:21:51

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Kanta Bharasagar v. Manoranjan Singh Deo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanta Bharasagar v. Manoranjan Singh Deo

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

Debendra Narayan Pattanaik Vs Sangahmitra Biswal@Pattanaik

Pratap Kumbhar Vs State of Odisha

Ghasi Sukri Vs State of Odisha

Nirupama Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Lipsarani Behera Vs Debasish Behera

Suryakanta Behera Vs State of Odisha