p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.663 of 2024 Madhab Chandra Dash and others …. Petitioners Mr. K.C. R. Mohapatra, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite party Mr. S. Behera, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 25.06.2025 01. 1. Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Behera, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 30th September, 2024 passed in ST No.41 of 2024 as at Annexure-1, whereby, an application under Annexure-7 in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge was declined. 3. Mr. Mohaptra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned court below has not taken into account the fact that the petitioners have lodged a counter FIR and that apart, wrong offences have been mentioned in Annexure-1, while considering Annexure-7, inasmuch as, it has been concluded that there has been prima facie material to hold the petitioners having committed offences under Sections 498A, 323, 313 and 406 read with 34 IPC inconsistent with the offences for which the case was registered leading to the submission of chargesheet and hence, therefore, the impugned decision is liable to be interfered with and set aside. p. 2 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order at Annexure-1 is of the month of September, 2024 and in the meantime, charge must have been framed with the commencement of trial. In reply and response to the above, Mr. Mohaptra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charge is still to be framed, hence, the trial has not started. 5. Referring to the chargesheet at Annexure-3 and the counter FIR dated 21st May, 2020 i.e. Annexure-4, the submission of Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners is that learned court below did not properly consider and appreciate the demand for discharge. The further submission is that all such materials including the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the counter case have not been taken judicial notice of while dealing with the application for discharge. In fact, for the alleged incident dated 21st June, 2020, the FIR i.e. Annexure-2 was lodged and it led to the filing the chargesheet, a copy of which is at Annexure-3. As earlier stated, for the self-same incident, the counter FIR was lodged from the side of the petitioners. In so far as, the contention of Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the counter FIR and for having not been taken cognizance of by learned court below, the Court is of the humble view that at the time of taking a decision on Annexure-7, it was required to examine the materials received along with the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-3. With respect to the rejection order dated 30th September, 2024 i.e. Annexure-1, the Court is also of the view that learned court below did not deal with the grounds advanced by the petitioners and that apart, p. 3 erroneously held that a prima facie case is made against them in respect of offences under Sections 498, 323, 313 and 406 read with 34 IPC, whereas, the chargesheet is filed for the offences under Sections 341, 294, 323 427, 307 and 506 IPC read with 34 IPC. As it appears, on a bare looking at the rejection order i.e. Annexure-1, learned court below has not applied its judicial mind and in a mechanical manner dealt with the application for discharge and therefore, in the ultimate view of the Court, the same is to be set at naught with a direction to re-examine and dispose of Annexure-7 as per and in accordance with law providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. 7. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 30th September, 2024 at Annexure-1 is hereby set aside with a direction to learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khordha to freshly consider the application for discharge i.e. Annexure-7 and thereafter, in view of the direction as aforesaid, to dispose of the same according to law as soon as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Designation: Junior Stenographer