[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
(A Petition Under Section 528 Of The ... vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 27 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 09-Mar-2026 17:51:31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3331 of 2024
(A petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.)
Pravanjan Beura & Ors. .... Petitioner (s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Manoranjan Mishra, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
Mr. Samvit Mohanty, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-23.02.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-27.02.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the
legality and propriety of the judgment dated 22.07.2024 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, in Criminal Revision No.02 of 2023.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
i. An F.I.R. was registered at Jagatsinghpur P.S. vide P.S. Case
No. 13 of 2019 on the basis of a written report lodged by
Shrabani Priyadarshini Malla @ Beura before Jagatsinghpur
Page 1
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
P.S. on 14.01.2019. In the said report, it was alleged that she
had married Pravanjan Beura on 28.06.2017 and that, at the
time of marriage, her father had given cash of Rs. 3,00,000/-,
gold and silver ornaments, and other household articles as per
the demand of her husband and in-laws. It was further alleged
that subsequently her husband and father-in-law demanded
an additional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry from her parental
family, which could not be fulfilled, and that she was
subjected to mental and physical cruelty on that account. It
was also alleged that, by use of force, her signature was
obtained on a blank paper on the pretext of transfer, and that
during her stay in the matrimonial home, she conceived due to
a physical relationship with her husband, but her husband
and in-laws compelled her to terminate the pregnancy. Upon
her refusal, it was alleged that she was subjected to further
torture and was seriously assaulted on 29.09.2017 at about 2.00
PM. The informant further alleged that she was driven out of
the matrimonial house after being abused in filthy language
and threatened with dire consequences, including threat to her
life. It was also alleged that her wearing apparels were
removed and, upon protest, she was assaulted by fist blows
and kicks, and thereafter her husband left her at her father's
house at Jagatsinghpur. She was allegedly rescued by her
father and returned with the hope that the behaviour of the
accused persons would change. However, as the situation did
Page 2
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
not improve, she was constrained to lodge the F.I.R. before the
IIC, Jagatsinghpur P.S., which was registered as P.S. Case No.
13 of 2019 for commission of offences under Sections 498-A,
294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
ii. Upon completion of investigation, the concerned Police
submitted a charge sheet on 19.06.2019 under Sections 498-A,
294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with the case diary and
other connected papers, against the present Petitioners.
iii. The learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur, on perusal of the
materials on record and being satisfied that a prima facie case
was made out against the Petitioners, took cognizance of the
aforesaid offences by order dated 16.08.2019. Accordingly,
summons were issued to the Petitioners by order dated
16.08.2019, fixing 30.09.2019 as the date for their appearance.
iv. While the matter stood thus, the learned A.P.P. filed a petition
under Sections 211 and 216 of the Cr.P.C. on 21.11.2022,
praying for addition of charge under Section 406 of the I.P.C.,
which had allegedly been omitted by the Investigating Officer
at the time of submission of the charge sheet. In the said
petition, it was stated that although the ingredients
constituting an offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. were
available from the materials on record, the charge sheet had
been submitted without incorporating the said offence.
Page 3
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
v. The Petitioners filed their objection to the said petition
contending that the Investigating Officer had rightly
submitted the charge sheet after completion of investigation
and that all presentation articles, as per the list, had already
been seized. It was further stated that at the time of departure,
the informant had taken all her gold ornaments with her. The
Petitioners also asserted that there was no demand for dowry
from their side at the time of marriage and, therefore, the
question of return of cash amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/-, as
alleged by the prosecution, does not arise. The other
allegations made in the petition were also denied, and they
prayed for rejection of the petition seeking addition of charge
under Section 406 of the I.P.C.
vi. However, the learned Trial Court, by order dated 25.01.2023,
allowed the said petition and directed addition of charge
under Section 406 of the I.P.C.
vii. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25.01.2023, the
Petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2023 before
the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, contending that the
Investigating Officer had rightly submitted the charge sheet
after due investigation without incorporating Section 406 of
the I.P.C., and that the petition for addition of charge had been
filed at a belated stage only to delay the proceeding. It was
further contended that the learned Trial Court had erred in
Page 4
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
allowing addition of charge under Section 406 of the I.P.C.,
which relates to criminal breach of trust.
viii. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, by order
dated 22.07.2024, dismissed the said revision petition holding
that no illegality or perversity had been committed by the
learned Trial Court in arriving at such conclusion and the plea
raised by the accused/Petitioners could be advanced during
trial to dispute the charge. Accordingly, the said Criminal
Revision was dismissed on contest.
ix. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have approached this Court
challenging the judgment dated 22.07.2024 passed in Criminal
Revision No. 2 of 2023.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners made the following submissions in
support of his contentions:
i. It was submitted that the Petitioners are innocent and the Opposite
Parties had filed the petition for addition of charge only to harass
and humiliate them.
ii. It was contended that although the informant, at the time of lodging
the F.I.R., mentioned certain alleged dowry articles, she failed to
produce any material to establish the authenticity of the alleged
payment or entrustment of such property by her parents. No
document has been produced to show entrustment of any property
to the accused persons, nor is there any material indicating
acknowledgment or receipt thereof by them.
Page 5
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
iii. It was submitted that Section 406 of the I.P.C., which relates to
criminal breach of trust, necessarily requires proof of entrustment of
property and subsequent dishonest misappropriation, conversion,
use, or disposal of such property in violation of any legal direction,
authority or contract.
iv. According to the Petitioners, in the present case, there is no material
on record to establish entrustment or misappropriation by the
accused persons and, therefore, the essential ingredients to attract an
offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. are totally absent. In such
circumstances, framing of charge under the said provision does not
arise and the order directing addition of charge is liable to be set
aside.
v. It was further submitted that the dispute, if any, is essentially of a
civil nature and has been given the colour of a criminal proceeding.
Criminal proceedings ought not to be used as instruments of
harassment. Though the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
is to be exercised sparingly, it may be invoked to prevent abuse of
the process of Court or to secure the ends of justice.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Per contra, the Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
i. During investigation of the case, the list of dowry articles was seized
by the Investigating Officer, which indicated that cash of Rs.
3,00,000/- and certain gold ornaments had been given to the accused
persons at the time of marriage. It was further submitted that when
Page 6
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the dowry articles were seized, neither the said gold ornaments nor
the cash were recovered from the accused persons or handed over in
zima to the complainant. It was contended that this indicates
entrustment of the said articles and failure on the part of the accused
persons to account for the same. Accordingly, it was submitted that
prima facie an offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. is made out and
that the learned Trial Court has rightly concluded that there was
sufficient material to frame charge under the said provision.
ii. It was further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge,
Jagatsinghpur, in Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2023, has rightly
appreciated the materials on record and has not committed any
illegality or perversity in affirming the order of the learned Trial
Court.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, JAGATSINGHPUR:
5. The learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, in Criminal Revision No. 02 of
2023, considered the challenge to the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the
learned Trial Court allowing addition of charge under Section 406 of the
I.P.C. in exercise of powers under Sections 211 and 216 of the Cr.P.C.
6. It was noted that though Section 406 of the I.P.C. had not been included at
the stage of registration of the F.I.R. or taking cognizance, the Court is not
bound by the opinion of the Investigating Officer and is competent to
frame a charge if, at the stage of consideration of charge, prima facie
materials disclose commission of such offence.
7. The learned Sessions Judge observed that at the stage of framing of charge,
the Court is only required to examine whether there exists ground for
Page 7
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
presuming that the accused has committed the offence and that detailed
appreciation of evidence is not warranted.
8. On perusal of the seizure list and materials on record, the Revisional Court
observed that 188 articles had been seized, but cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- and
specified gold ornaments allegedly given at the time of marriage were not
recovered or returned. It was held that whether actual entrustment took
place is a matter to be decided during trial upon examination of witnesses
and production of evidence. However, at the stage of framing of charge,
there were sufficient materials to raise a prima facie case of entrustment
and possible misappropriation.
9. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge held that no illegality or
perversity had been committed by the Trial Court in directing addition of
charge under Section 406 of the I.P.C., and dismissed the Criminal
Revision on contest.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available
on record.
11. The primary issue for consideration before this Court is whether the
learned Sessions Judge committed any illegality or perversity in affirming
the order of the learned Trial Court directing addition of charge under
Section 406 of the I.P.C., so as to warrant interference in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.
Page 8
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
12. At the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the scope of
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
13. Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preserves the
inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be
necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. However, it is well settled that such power does
not confer unlimited or arbitrary jurisdiction. The inherent power is
extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised with circumspection and
only in cases where failure to interfere would result in miscarriage of
justice.
14. It is equally settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not
required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence. The test to be
applied is whether, on the basis of the materials available, there exists a
prima facie case for presuming that the accused has committed the offence
alleged. Even strong suspicion founded upon the materials on record is
sufficient at this stage.
15. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI1 observed as
hereinunder:
21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles
emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima
facie case against the accused has been made out. The
(2010) 9 SCC 368.
Page 9
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
test to determine prima facie case would depend upon
the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has
not been properly explained, the court will be fully
justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the
trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the court,
any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there
cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court
could form an opinion that the accused might have
committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed
the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the
probative value of the material on record cannot be gone
into but before framing a charge the court must apply its
judicial mind on the material placed on record and must
be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused
was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on
record with a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be
expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to
common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives
rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave
Page 10
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge
the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the
trial will end in conviction or acquittal.
22.It is trite that the Court is empowered to alter or add to any charge at any
time before judgment is pronounced. Section 216 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, confers such power upon the Court. Any such
alteration or addition must be read and explained to the accused, and the
Court is required to ensure that the same does not cause prejudice to the
accused in his defence or to the prosecution in the conduct of the case.
23.The Supreme Court in Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana2 while
dealing with a case where an application was filed for framing an
additional charge under Section 406 of the I.P.C. in a prosecution under
Sections 498-A and 323 of the I.P.C., observed that the Court can change or
alter the charge if there is any defect or omission and that the test is
whether such alteration is founded on the material available on record. It
was observed as follows:
"18. From the aforesaid, it is graphic that the court can
change or alter the charge if there is defect or something
is left out. The test is, it must be founded on the material
available on record. It can be on the basis of the complaint
or the FIR or accompanying documents or the material
brought on record during the course of trial. It can also
be done at any time before pronouncement of judgment.
It is not necessary to advert to each and every
circumstance. Suffice it to say, if the court has not
framed a charge despite the material on record, it has the
jurisdiction to add a charge. Similarly, it has the
authority to alter the charge. The principle that has to be
(2016) 6 SCC 105.
Page 11
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
kept in mind is that the charge so framed by the
Magistrate is in accord with the materials produced
before him or if subsequent evidence comes on record. It
is not to be understood that unless evidence has been let
in, charges already framed cannot be altered, for that is
not the purport of Section 216 CrPC."
24.In the present case, the allegations in the F.I.R. disclose that at the time of
marriage, cash of Rs.3,00,000/- and certain gold ornaments were allegedly
given by the informant's family to the accused persons. It is further alleged
that the said cash and ornaments were not returned to the informant. The
seizure list reflects recovery of certain other articles. However, the
aforesaid cash amount and specified gold ornaments were neither
recovered from the accused persons nor returned. Whether such cash and
ornaments were in fact entrusted to the accused persons and whether there
was any dishonest misappropriation thereof are matters to be determined
upon appreciation of evidence during trial.
25.Further, the contention of the Petitioners is that there is absence of proof of
entrustment which cannot be examined in depth at the stage of framing of
charge. At this stage, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the
materials on record raise a prima facie inference attracting the ingredients
of Section 406 of the I.P.C. The existence or otherwise of entrustment and
subsequent dishonest misappropriation are essentially questions of fact
which must be adjudicated upon evidence.
26.The learned Trial Court, while allowing the petition under Sections 211
and 216 of the Cr.P.C., exercised its statutory power being satisfied that the
materials disclosed commission of such offence.
Page 12
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
27.The learned Revisional Court, upon a comprehensive examination of the
materials available on record, recorded a finding that the learned Trial
Court had acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction while exercising
power to add a charge under Section 406 of the I.P.C. The Revisional Court
took note of the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and the contents of the
seizure list and was of the view that the same disclose prima facie material
suggestive of entrustment and non-return of the alleged articles, thereby
attracting the ingredients of Section 406 of the I.P.C. It was further
observed that the veracity of such allegations is a matter to be tested upon
evidence during trial and not at the threshold stage of framing of charge.
On such analysis, the Revisional Court concluded that the order of the
Trial Court did not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting
interference.
28.This Court, upon independent consideration of the materials on record,
does not find that the impugned order suffers from any patent illegality or
perversity so as to warrant interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
29.The addition of charge does not amount to a final determination of guilt
but merely enables the Trial Court to examine the matter comprehensively
upon evidence being led, subject to the right of the accused persons to raise
all permissible defences in accordance with law.
VI. CONCLUSION:
30.In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no merit in the present CRLMC.
The judgment dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Page 13
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Jagatsinghpur, in Criminal Revision No.02 of 2023 does not warrant
interference.
31.Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
32.It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the
adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the Trial Court
while deciding the matter on merits.
33.Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 27th February, 2026
Page 14
