IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.116 of 2026 Ranju Pradhan … Petitioner Mr. K. P. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. C. R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 12.02.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Assailing the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge, Odagaon in S.T. Case No. 110/2023 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner to discharge him from the offences under Sections 227 of Cr.P.C., the present Criminal Revision has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that by refusing to entertain the Petitioner’s prayer for discharge, the learned Sessions Court acted with material irregularity and perverse appreciation of facts. Consequently, the impugned order warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 4. Admittedly, the Petitioner is not a named accused in the FIR and she is in public life and because of Political dissension, she has been arrayed as an accused and the case and counter case filed is a testimony to that and hence in this background, the statements of the witnesses, which according to the learned counsel for the Petitioner are parrot like repetitions, ought not to have weighed with the learned Court in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for discharge. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer. 6. It is trite that FIR is not an encyclopedia, moreover this Court carefully perused the statements on record including the statement of one of the injured, namely Sanatan Mohanty, who has specifically named the Petitioner and also the corresponding injury report. 7. On considering the same, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vrs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, which has also been referred to by the learned Trial Court, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there is any perverse exercise of jurisdiction, so as to warrant interference of this Court in entertaining this criminal revision. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision along wit the pending I.As., if any, stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Jina