p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3385 of 2022 Babula @ Krushna Chandra Behera …. Petitioner Mr. B.S. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel Mr. Manish Nag Das, Advocate (for Informant) CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 29.01.2026 (Through hybrid Mode) 06. 1. This CRLMC has been filed challenging the order dated 10.05.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court (F.T.S.C.), Kendrapara in G.R. Case No. 45 of 2021, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 417, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. Mr. B.S. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the FIR in question has been lodged at a belated stage (about six months from the date of last incident i.e. 08.08.2020). He further submits that a perusal of the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as the statement p. 2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it would be apparent that the relations between the Petitioner and victim were consensual and she was all along aware that the Petitioner was a married man. He further submits that at the time of lodging of the FIR, she had attained majority and on 08.08.2020 also, she was a major. He also submits that detailed examination of the materials on record collected by the prosecution may be necessary for deciding his contentions, he may be permitted to raise all his contentions at the time of framing of charge. 3. Mr. Manish Nag Das, learned counsel for the informant submits that the victim was a minor at the time of first occurrence, for which the Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 417, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and no interference by this Court is warranted. He further submits that if the Petitioner files an application for discharge, the Opposite Party No.2-informant should also be heard. 4. Considering the nature of allegations against the Petitioner and the submissions of the learned counsel, but without going into the merits of the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the CRLMC is disposed of granting liberty to the p. 3 Petitioner to raise all his contentions at the time of framing of charge by filing an application for discharge, if so advised. 5. It is needless to say that the Opposite Party No. 2 - informant shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the application is disposed of. 6. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner undertakes that the application for discharge shall be filed within a period of two weeks from today. 7. Since the case is of the year 2021, it is expected that the learned trial Court shall proceed with the case without granting unnecessary adjournments. 8. Interim order of stay passed earlier stands vacated. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Sukanta Designation: Senior Stenographer