p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.743 of 2025 Dhaneswar Lenka and others …. Petitioners Mr. S. Das, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA Mr. G. Mishra, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICER.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 28.10.2025 I.A. No.1065 of 2025 01. 1. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Instant petition is filed seeking delay condonation in presenting the revision beyond the statutory period. 3. A delay of 196 days is reported as per the SR. Accepting the explanation of the petitioner and the delay which has occasioned in filing of the revision and submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court is inclined to condone the same in the interest of justice. 4. Hence, it is ordered. 5. I.A. is allowed with the delay being condoned. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge 02. CRLREV No.743 of 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. p. 2 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order of cognizance dated 10th December, 2024 at Annexure-4 in G.R. Case No.63 of 2022 on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with a false allegation made on account of a civil dispute between the parties, the FIR was lodged by the informant leading to the filing of the chargesheet as per Annexure-3 series and thereafter, the order of cognizance i.e. Annexure-4, hence, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Gopinath Mishra, learned counsel and his associates enters appearance for the informant today and files the Vakalatnama, which is accepted and taken on record. According to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, no wrong has been committed by the learned court below, while passing the impugned order at Annexure-4. 5. Perused the FIR i.e. Annexure-1. 6. Referring to copy of the bail order at Annexure-2, it is submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners that a civil dispute exists between the parties, hence, the false FIR lodged. Considering the plea of the petitioners and nature of allegations revealed from the FIR i.e. Annexure-1, recording the submissions of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, the Court is of the view that the petitioners should be granted the liberty to raise all such plea advanced at present at the time of framing of charge. According to the Court, the petitioners should, therefore, be p. 3 granted the liberty to file an application seeking discharge and upon receiving the same, the learned court below should be directed to consider it along with all the materials filed besides the chargesheet dated 30th June, 2024 for a decision according to law and such is the view of the Court without expressing anything on merit of the case. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the liberty allowed in favour of the petitioners to make an application demanding discharge and in case, any such application is filed by them, it shall be duly entertained by the learned Civil Judge (J.D)-cum-JMFC, Kanas at the time of framing of charge in connection with G.R. Case No.63 of 2022 and to dispose it of on merit and in accordance with law. 9. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Designation: Junior Stenographer