Tapaswini Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Dowry and Cruelty | Orissa HC (2026)

Tapaswini Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Dowry and Cruelty | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether, the allegations against the Petitioner being ex facie omnibus in nature, no complicity can be attributed to the Petitioner even if accepted at face value, so that continuance of the trial would constitute an abuse of process of law, warranting discharge. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court agrees with the learned Trial Court that the judgments cited on behalf of the Petitioner (Manas Ranjan Senapati; Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther; Ex. Sq. Ldr. R. Sood) are contextually distinguishable.

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the materials on record (including the statement of the victim, CSW-1, and the statement of the father) and evaluating them on the touchstone of the judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds no infirmity in the appreciation of materials warranting interference in this revision.

Key takeaways

The dismissal of this revision ought not be construed as this Court expressing any view regarding the complicity of the Petitioner; complicity has to be established in an independent manner in the ensuing trial.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision dismissed — CRLREV No.444 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Justice V. Narasingh, order dated 09.07.2026. The Petitioner (Tapaswini Sahoo), accused of offences punishable under Sections 85/296/115(2)/351(2)/3(5) of BNS read with Section 4 of D.P. Act in G.R. Case No.153 of 2025 arising out of P.S. Case No.158 of 2025, assailed the order dated 19.05.2026 of the learned J.M.F.C., Khandapara refusing to entertain her discharge application filed under Section 262 of BNSS. Counsel argued the allegations were ex facie omnibus, attributing no complicity and rendering the trial an abuse of process, relying on Manas Ranjan Senapati (2026(1) OLR 476), Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther (2025 SCC Online SC 520) and Ex. Sq. Ldr. R. Sood (2026 INSC 366). Examining the statement of the victim (CSW-1) and of the father, and evaluating the materials on the touchstone of the Apex Court judgments relied on by the Trial Court (Tuhin Ku. Biswas @ Bumba, (2026) 101 OCR (SC) 960; Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi, (2025) 100 OCR (SC) 457), this Court found no infirmity warranting interference and held the petitioner-cited judgments contextually distinguishable; the revision was dismissed without expressing any view on the Petitioner's complicity, which is to be established in the ensuing trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV No.444 of 2026

Tapaswini Sahoo

Petitioner

Mr. J. Mahapatra, Advocate

-versus-

1. State of Orissa

…. Opposite Parties

2. Bishnupriya Dash

Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

09.07.2026

Order No.

01.

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

The Petitioner is accused of commission of offence punishable under Sections 85/ 296/ 115(2)/ 351(2)/ 3(5) of BNS and read with Section 4 of D.P. Act.

Assailing the order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Khandapara in G.R. Case No.153 of 2025 arising out of P.S. Case No.158 of 2025, refusing to entertain an application filed under Section 262 of BNSS, seeking discharge from the alleged offences, this Criminal Revision has been filed.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations are ex facie omnibus in nature and

Page 1 of 3

even if accepted at its face value, no complicity can be attributed to the Petitioner. Hence the conduct of the trial would be an abuse of process of law and it is his submission that in the petition seeking discharge, more particularly paragraphs-1,3 and 4 thereof, the Petitioner had specifically urged this ground and decisions in the case of Manas Ranjan Senapati V. State of Orissa , 2026(1) OLR 476, Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther V. State of Maharashtra , 2025 SCC Online SC 520 and Ex. Sq. Ldr. R. Sood V. Union of India & Ors , 2026 INSC 366 were relied upon.

It is stated that the learned Court in seisin, without appreciating the submissions, in the light of the materials on record and the judgment cited, rejected the petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer. 5. This Court carefully examined the statement of the victim, CSW-1 as well as the statement of the father, to test the submission of the Petitioner that the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Court is perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court. 6. In negating the prayer for discharge, the learned Trial Court has referred to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Tuhin Ku. Biswas @

Page 2 of 3

Bumba V. State of West Bengal , (2026) 101 OCR (SC) 960 and State, Represented by Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Vishikapatnam V. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and Ors. , (2025) 100 OCR (SC) 457 .

On perusal of the materials on record and evaluating the same on the touchstone of the judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned trial Court, this Court does not find any infirmity in the appreciation of materials on record so as to warrant interference in this revision.

This Court is in agreement with the learned trial Court that the judgments cited on behalf of the Petitioner are contextually distinguishable.

Hence, the revision is dismissed.

It is needless to state that the dismissal of this revision ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any view regarding the complicity of the Petitioner. The same has to be established in an independent manner in the ensuing trial.

Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH)

Judge

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Soumya Date: 10-Jul-2026 14:26:55

Page 3 of 3