Dismissed¶¶22

Simanchala Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Jan 2026CRLREV/42/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRL. REV. No.42 of 2026; Justice V. Narasingh; discharge petition S. 64(2)(m) BNS; S.T No.183 of 2025; consensual relationship coloured as criminality; FIR delay six days; medical evidence non-corroboration; victim statement S. 183 BNSS; charge-stage defence barred — Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568; revision rejected/dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Taking into account the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the Court is not persuaded to hold that there is no prima facie case against the Petitioner; it is trite that an FIR is not an encyclopedia. ¶¶19

Simanchala Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRL. REV. No.42 of 2026

¶3

Simanchala Nayak

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S.K. Lenka, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & …. Opposite Party another Mr.S. Panigrahi,

¶8

ASC

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

Order

20.01.2026

No.

01.

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

¶15

Filing the present Criminal Revision the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in S.T No.183 of 2025 not entertaining the petition filed by the Petitioner for discharge from the accusation under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS is under challenge.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on a bare perusal of the FIR and the materials on record, it is clearly established that a consensual relationship has been given the colour of criminality. Hence, the Petitioner ought not to be subjected to rigors of the trial. It is also stated that though the alleged incident occurred on 28.06.2025,

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

the FIR was instituted after delay of six days. There is no explanation of the delay and the medical evidence does not corroborate the allegations.

¶19

It is apt to note that there is no dispute at the Bar that victim is a married lady and it is trite that FIR is not an encyclopedia and taking into account the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there is no prima facie case against the present Petitioner.

¶20

It is the settled position of law that defence of an accused cannot be taken into account at the stage of consideration of the charge. In this regard, this Court respectfully refers to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vrs. Debendra Nath Padhi , (2005) 1 SCC 568 which still holds the field.

¶21

On a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal Revision exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

¶22

Accordingly, Criminal Revision stands rejected.

¶23

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶24

PKS

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 20-Jan-2026 20:07:11

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Simanchala Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simanchala Nayak 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

Puspanjali Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Mitra Bhanu Panda Vs State of Odisha

Jayaram Panda Vs State of Odisha

Sanjay Keshari Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Kunduru Lahajal@Kundru Lahajal@ Goud Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Kumar Bhatta Vs Aparti Mallick