Sajit Kumar Lenka v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 Feb 2026CRLREV/53/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court criminal revision against order of cognizance under SC & ST (PoA) Act; plea that caste-related allegation was made 'within the four walls of the house' so no prima facie case under the Special Act; cognizance upheld applying State of Haryana vrs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335); revision disposed of; liberty reserved to contest at charge-framing stage; CT Case No.124/2024, Cuttack; single judge V. Narasingh.

What did the court decide?

On close scrutiny of the complainant's statement, the Court is not persuaded to accept the Petitioners' submission; the order of cognizance does not suffer from any infirmity when considered on the touchstone of the Apex Court decision in State of Haryana vrs. Bhajan Lal, and the criminal revision is therefore not entertained. ¶¶22

Sajit Kumar Lenka Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of cognizance dated 14.07.2025 under the SC & ST (PoA) Act is sustainable, given the Petitioners' submission that no prima facie case is made out because the alleged institution relating to caste was made within the four walls of the house.

¶¶17

Court's answer

¶¶22

Key takeaways

The observations made were only for the limited purpose of considering the order taking cognizance; it shall remain open to the Petitioner to canvas all grounds available in accordance with law at the time of framing of charge, which shall be considered independently without being influenced by these observations.obiter¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRLREV No.53 of 2026), High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Justice V. Narasingh, decided 13.02.2026 — Assailing the order of cognizance dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer-cum-Spl. Court under SC & ST (PoA) Act, Cuttack in CT. Case No.124/2024, the Petitioners contended that even accepting the prosecution case and the complainant's statement at face value, no prima facie case was made out under the Special Act, since the alleged institution relating to caste was made within the four walls of the house. Examining the complainant's statement (not reproduced to avoid prejudice to the Petitioners), the Court declined to accept the submission and held that the order of cognizance suffered from no infirmity when tested on the touchstone of State of Haryana vrs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The revision accordingly stood disposed of, with the express reservation that the observations were confined to the cognizance stage and the Petitioner remained free to canvas all grounds at the time of framing of charge.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.53 of 2026

¶3

1. Sajit Kumar Lenka

¶4

… Petitioners

¶5

2. Amareswar Lenka

¶6

3. Sabitri Rani Lenka

¶7

Mr. D. K. Mishra, Advocate

¶8

-versus-

¶9

1. State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties 2. Rajashree Behera @ Lenka

¶10

Mr. C. R. Swain, AGA

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

Order

13.02.2026

No.

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

¶16

Assailing the order of cognizance dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer-cumSpl. Court under SC & ST (PoA) Act, Cuttack in CT. Case No.124/2024, the present criminal revision has been filed.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that even if the prosecution case and the statement of the complainant are accepted at its face value, no prima facie case more particularly under the Special Act is made out.

¶18

It is also submitted that the ingredients are conspicuous by their absence for maintaining an

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

accusation under the Special Act inasmuch as it is submitted with vehemence that the alleged institution relating to caste, was made within the four walls of the house.

¶21

On close scrutiny of the statement of the complainant, this Court is not persuaded to accept such submission. Since, the Petitioners would be prejudiced the same, is not extracted here.

¶22

Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain this criminal revision since in the considered view of this Court, the order of cognizance does not suffer from any infirmity considered on the touchstone of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vrs.

¶23

Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

¶24

It is needless to state that it shall be open for the Petitioner to canvas all grounds available in accordance with law, the time of framing of charge which shall be considered independently without being influenced by the observations made herein which was only for the limited purpose of considering the order taking cognizance of the offences.

¶25