p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRL. REV. No.42 of 2026 Simanchala Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Lenka, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Party Mr.S. Panigrahi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 20.01.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Filing the present Criminal Revision the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in S.T No.183 of 2025 not entertaining the petition filed by the Petitioner for discharge from the accusation under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS is under challenge. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on a bare perusal of the FIR and the materials on record, it is clearly established that a consensual relationship has been given the colour of criminality. Hence, the Petitioner ought not to be subjected to rigors of the trial. It is also stated that though the alleged incident occurred on 28.06.2025, p. 2 the FIR was instituted after delay of six days. There is no explanation of the delay and the medical evidence does not corroborate the allegations. 4. It is apt to note that there is no dispute at the Bar that victim is a married lady and it is trite that FIR is not an encyclopedia and taking into account the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there is no prima facie case against the present Petitioner. It is the settled position of law that defence of an accused cannot be taken into account at the stage of consideration of the charge. In this regard, this Court respectfully refers to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vrs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 which still holds the field. 5. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal Revision exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, Criminal Revision stands rejected. (V. NARASINGH) Judge PKS