p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.171 of 2026 1. Subash @ Subash Chandra Nayak 2. Smt. Mausumi @ Mama Nayak …. Petitioners Mr. M.R. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa (Home Department) …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 15.07.2026 04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioners are accused of commission of offence punishable under Sections 147/ 148/ 336/ 341/ 294/ 323/ 307/ 354(B)/ 506/ 149 of IPC. Assailing the order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the learned C.J.M-cum-ASJ, Khurda in S.T. Case No.01/90 of 2025/2024 arising out of Khurda P.S. Case No.103 of 2019, refusing to entertain an application filed under Section 228 of Cr.P.C, seeking discharge from the alleged offences, this Criminal Revision has been filed. p. 2 3. It is apt to note that the present Petitioners are two of the eighteen accused persons, who have to face trial. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioner No.2 is a primary school teacher and Petitioner No.1 is an employee of the Court of J.M.F.C., Khurda. It is further stated that a civil dispute has been given the colour of criminality, pursuant to which the F.I.R was instituted and without proper investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet. Such non-application of mind was further perpetrated while taking cognizance of the offence, which ultimately culminated in the learned Court in seisin framing the impugned charge and it is also stated that the plea of alibi has not been taken into account, though there are materials on record. 5. On considering the rival submissions and going through the charge sheet and the order passed, this Court does not find any infirmity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Court in seisin so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction since the ground urged, more particularly, plea of alibi have to be considered during trial. Hence, the revision, being devoid of merit is dismissed. p. 3 6. It is needless to state that the dismissal of this revision ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any view regarding the complicity of the Petitioner. The same has to be established in an independent manner in the ensuing trial. 7. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Soumya