[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bhanumati Nayak vs State Of Orissa & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 22 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.79 of 2013
Bhanumati Nayak ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
M/s.atal Behari
Mohanty
-versus-
State of Orissa & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
22.12.2025
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that the present
leave application has been filed at the instance of the informant
under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C seeking leave to prefer an
appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.08.2011
passed in G.R Case No.791 of 1997 (T.R No.2043/2000).
3. On perusal of the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2011,
it appears that the Opposite Party faced trial for commission of
an offence under Sections 498A, 34 of I.P.C. As per the F.I.R
story, the accused persons in furtherance of their common
intention voluntarily obstructed the way of the informant and
assaulted him without any provocation. As per the F.I.R story,
the informant is the brother-in-law of the accused persons. On
perusal of the facts narrated in the judgment, it appears that the
informant is the injured in this case. Thus, this Court has no
hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the informant-
petitioner is a victim, who had sustained some injuries as per
the prosecution case.
4. Taking into consideration the factual background of the
present case, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner-
informant can very well be termed as a victim as has been
defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, the
informant-petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of
acquittal has approached this Court under Section 378(4) of the
Cr.P.C seeking leave to prefer an appeal. At the outset, this
Court would like to clarify that the provision under which the
present application has been filed, is not applicable to the case
of the Petitioner as the present case arises out of a G.R Case
which emanates from a P.S Case. So far the present Petitioner
is concerned, he is an informant, thus, the Petitioner should
have preferred an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of
the Cr.P.C. In view of the aforesaid clear legal provision, this
Court is of the view that the Stamp Reporter has rightly
pointed out that the present leave application under Section
378(4) of the Cr.P.C is not maintainable and hence the present
application is to be converted into an appeal. In view of the
aforesaid Stamp Report, the present application is being
disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an
appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C along
with an application for condonation of delay, if any. In such
eventuality, the learned trial court shall consider the delay
taking into consideration the grounds which are likely to be
taken by the Petitioner and consider such delay
sympathetically.
5. Accordingly, the CRLLP stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
