Disposed¶28

Rohit Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Feb 2026CRLREV/57/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of cognizance refused; criminal revision against order of cognizance disposed; prima facie case made out; FIR allegations improbability and exaggeration; matrimonial discord; parties living separately since 24.12.2022; paragraph-6 of Title Suit (D) No.02 of 2024; mutual divorce suit filed in Assam; Baseli Sahi P.S. Case No.61 of 2025; G.R. Case No.215 of 2015; J.M.F.C.-II Puri; charge sheet; liberty at framing of charge; revisional jurisdiction not exercised; High Court of Orissa; Justice V. Narasingh; 04.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the order of cognizance; Criminal Revision disposed of (not entertained), with liberty to the Petitioners to raise contentions at framing of charge. Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of. ¶28

Rohit Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of cognizance dated 31.10.2025 passed by the J.M.F.C.-II, Puri is an abuse of process / suffers material irregularity warranting interference in revision, given the Petitioners' claim that the parties live separately since 24.12.2022 (per paragraph-6 of Title Suit (D) No.02 of 2024), rendering the FIR allegations ex-facie improbable and exaggerated.

¶22

Court's answer

This Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal Revision: a prima facie case is well made out and the order of cognizance does not suffer from any patent incongruity warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Petitioners remain at liberty to raise all their contentions at the stage of framing of charge, and the learned Trial Court shall take them up for consideration independently, not being prejudiced by the non-entertainment of this revision against the order of cognizance.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRLREV No.57 of 2026, High Court of Orissa, Justice V. Narasingh, 04.02.2026) assailing the order of cognizance dated 31.10.2025 passed by the J.M.F.C.-II, Puri in G.R. Case No.215 of 2015 arising out of Baseli Sahi P.S. Case No.61 of 2025. Petitioners relied on paragraph-6 of Title Suit (D) No.02 of 2024 (mutual divorce suit filed in Assam) recording that the parties have lived separately since 24.12.2022, arguing the FIR allegations were ex-facie improbable and exaggerated and the cognizance an abuse of process. Perusing the Trial Court order, materials and charge sheet, the Court held a prima facie case was well made out and the cognizance order suffered no patent incongruity warranting revisional interference; the revision stood disposed of, with liberty to raise all contentions at framing of charge, to be considered independently and without prejudice.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.57 of 2026

¶3

1. Rohit Kumar Mohanty

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

2. Tapan Kumar Mohanty

¶6

3. Renuka Mohanty

¶7

Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate

¶8

-versus-

¶9

1. State of Odisha

¶10

…. Opposite Parties

¶11

2. Payal Mahapatra

¶12

Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA

¶13

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

¶14

04.02.2026

¶15

Order No.

¶16

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶17

Assailing the order of cognizance dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-II, Puri in G.R. Case No.215 of 2015 arising out of Baseli Sahi P.S. Case No.61 of 2025, the present revision has been filed.

¶18

The attention of this Court is drawn to the civil litigation inter se between the parties and more particularly paragraph-6 of the Title Suit (D) No.02 of 2024 which is extracted hereunder:-

¶19

“That soon after the marriage owing to the difference in temperament, habits, tastes, thoughts and increasing incompatibility the relationship in between the First Petitioner

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

and the Second Petitioner deteriorated and frequent quarrels resulted as between them with several reconciliation but no adjustment, which did not, however, last for any length of time. Finally, in order to avoid further deterioration in relationship, both the parties decided to live separately and thereby they have been living separately since 24.12.2022 having no any family relationship.”

¶22

Relying heavily on the said paragraph, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners since it is urged before the concerned Court in Assam where Title Suit No.02 of 2024 seeking mutual divorce was filed that the Petitioners are living separately since 24.12.2022, the allegations made in the FIR ex-facie are highly improbable and it’s a clear case of exaggeration. Hence, the order of cognizance is an abuse of process of law and the learned Trial Court has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity warranting interference.

¶23

This Court perused the order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the materials on record and the copy of the charge sheet.

¶24

Taking note of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal Revision since prima facie case is well made out and that the order of cognizance does not suffer from any patent

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

incongruity which warrants exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶27

It is needless to state that the Petitioners are at liberty to raise all the contentions at the time of framing of charge, if so advised and this Court has no iota of doubt, if so raised, the same shall be taken up for consideration by the learned Court independently not being prejudiced by nonentertainment of this revision which, is against an order of cognizance.

¶28