Criminal revision assailing rejection of a prayer to recall a cognizance order under Section 394 IPC was disposed of as prima facie infructuous due to efflux of time, with liberty to renew if any surviving cause of action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.450 of 2003
1. Krushna Chandra … Petitioners Sahoo
2. Sansari Sahoo
3. Padmalochan @ Ananda Chandra Sahoo
4. Bijaya Kumar Behera @ Bijaya Behera
Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Sabitri Patra
…. Opposite Party
Mr. C. R. Swain, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER
16.03.2026
Order No.
12. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
Page 1 of 2
(V. NARASINGH) Judge
Jina
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: JINA DIGAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Mar-2026 18:41:26
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the challenge to the SDJM's rejection of recall of cognizance order survives after long passage of time.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krushna Chandra Sahoo
Sansari Sahoo
Padmalochan @ Ananda Chandra Sahoo
Bijaya Kumar Behera @ Bijaya Behera
Sabitri Patra
V. Narasingh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
