p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRL. REV. No.1052 of 2025 Bikash Rout … Petitioner Mr. J. Pradhan, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa …. Opposite Party Ms. J. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 19.02.2026 I.A. No. 1619 of 2025 04. 1. Heard. 2. This I.A. has been filed for condonation of delay. 3. Taking into account the submission at the Bar and the recitals in the I.A., the delay in filing of the CRLREV is condoned. 4. The I.A. is accordingly disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Order No. CRLREV No.1052 of 2025 05. 1. Assailing the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Adhoc. Addl. Sessions Judge (FTSC) p. 2 under POCSO Act, Bariapada, Mayurbhanj in C.T. Case No. 99 of 2022 rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge the Petitioner from the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 420, 500, 509, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012Section 67, 67 A, 67 B of the I.T. Act,2000, this Criminal Revision has been filed. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that failing to appreciate that admittedly there was a consensual relationship, the charge has been mechanically framed. Hence, the same being the outcome of a perverse exercise of revisional jurisdiction, merits interference by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer referring to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. 4. This Court perused 164 Cr.P.C. statement. 5. On considering the same along with other statements on record, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application in exercise of revisional jurisdiction since ex facie this Court does not find any infirmity in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court. p. 3 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision along with the pending I.As stand disposed of. 7. It is needless to state that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of considering the prayer of the petitioner regarding the framing of charge. The same ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioner, which has to be established in the ongoing trial in an independent manner. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Soumya Designation: Jr. Stenographer