p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 630 of 2023 Sajan Bhoi and another …. Petitioners Mr. G.C. Rout, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 14.07.2025 I.A. No.1219 of 2024 04. 1. Heard Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 2. Notice to opposite party No.2 is hereby dispensed with. 3. Instant I.A. is filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision on the grounds stated. 4. Recorded the objection of learned counsel for the State. opposite party No.1. 5. Since the petitioners have been summoned in the year 2023 as made to reveal from Annexure-1 after the order of cognizance dated 10th August, 2021 and hence, was the delay, this Court is of the view that such delay which has occasioned p. 2 in filing of the revision is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. 6. Accordingly, it is directed. 7. I.A. stands allowed with the delay of 747 days being condoned. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge CRLREV 630 of 2023 1. Heard Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant revision petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order of cognizance at Annexure-1. 3. Referring to the F.I.R. i.e. Annexure-2 and injury report at Annexure-3, Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no case under Section 307 IPC is made out, hence, it was not right for learned JMFC, Niali, Cuttack to take cognizance of the same by order dated 10th August, 2021 i.e. Annexure-1. It is further submitted that there has been a compromise between the parties in the meantime and therefore, application in that regard to be moved before the learned court below. With such submission, the claim is that a direction is required to be issued for the learned court below to pass necessary order on the compromise in case pressed into service and also to reconsider taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC in view of the nature of injury received and seizure of the weapon of offence as per Annexure-4. Page 3 of 4 4. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State submits that the injury has been received and accordingly, considering the F.I.R. i.e. Annexure-2, a case under Section 307 IPC has been registered against the petitioners. 5. Upon considering the seizure list i.e. Annexure-4, the Court finds that a bamboo stick was seized in connection with the case, whereas, the injury report reveals otherwise. As per the said report, the injured received an incised wound but simple in nature apparently caused by an iron rod. Considering the above facts, nature of injury sustained so revealed from Annexure-3 and seizure of a bamboo stick so made to appear from Annexure-4, the Court is of the view that learned court below should re-examine taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC taking into account the materials on record. The Court is also of the view that learned court below, if in case, is approached by both the sides in view of the compromise reached at as claimed by Mr. Rout, learned counsel appearing for them, to consider the same followed by appropriate orders according to law. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. 7. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with a direction to learned JMFC, Niali to reconsider the order of cognizance only for the offences under Section 307 IPC and to pass necessary order as per law. It is further directed that in the event, any such application is moved claiming compromise between the parties, it shall be duly entertained and disposed of p. 4 in terms of Section 320 Cr.P.C. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 10th August, 2021 as at Annexure-1 is set aside to the extent as aforesaid. 8. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per the rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita Designation: Secretary