p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRL. REV. No.907 of 2025 Ashok Kumar Mandal … Petitioner Mr. S.C. Mohapatra,Sr. Advocate Mr. P. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa …. Opposite Party Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 17.02.2026 04. 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Assailing the order dated 23.10.2025, passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge(FTSC), POCSO, Baripada in S.T. Case No. 45 of 2025, rejecting the prayer for discharge, the present Criminal Revision has been filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that even if the entire allegations are accepted at its face value, no case, inter alia, under Section 376(2)(n) is made out. As such the order framing the charge is the outcome of non-application of mind and is therefore, liable to be interfered with. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the statement of the victim on record and other materials, that it was p. 2 admittedly a consensual relationship and in the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the offence is even prima facie made out. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for State supports the framing of charge against the present Petitioner. 6. To fortify his submission learned senior counsel relies on the order of the Apex Court in the case of Kunal Chatterjee Vrs. The State of West Bengal and Others in SLP (Crl.) No(s). 7004 of 2025 disposed of on 29.07.2025. 7. This Court perused the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated about her acquaintance with the present accused and their relationship. She has been cited as P.W.1 in the final form. 8. On perusal of the said 164 Cr.P.C statement, it is stated that on 23.02.2020, when the Petitioner did not respond to her calls. Whom she accosted him on the said count, he assaulted her and injured her with a blade. 9. In this context, it is apt to refer the statement of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix and cited as C.S.W.21. 10. On perusal of the same, it is seen that there is corresponding injury on the left hand wrist of the prosecutrix. Page 3 of 4 11. The judgment cited by the Apex Court has to be seen in the light of material which has come to the fore in the case at hand. 12. The judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel is clearly distinguishable on the facts since the Apex Court taking into account, inter alia, the unexplained delay and taking into account that there is no forensic evidence on record, had quashed the proceedings against the accused therein. 13. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there is no prima facie case made out against the present Petitioner. 14. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, a microscopic examination of the materials on record is to be shunned and resort to mini trial. The same has been unequivocally stated by the Apex Court in the time tested dictum in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568. Respectful reference is made to the relevant part of the said judgment, which reads as under. “xxx xxx xxx 18. ........ If the contention of the accused is accepted, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the object of the Code. It p. 4 is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth........ xxx xxx xxx” In the humble view of this Court, the above observation of the Apex Court is squarely attracted in the factual backdrop of the case at hand. 15. On a conspectus of the materials on record, this Court does not find any merit in this revision so as to warrant interference. Hence, the CRLREV stands dismissed. 16. It is needless to state that the observation made herein are only for the purpose of the considering the challenge to framing of charge and ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioner, which has to be established independently in the ongoing trial. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Soumya Designation: Jr. Stenographer