[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Jayashree Sahoo @ Jayashree vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party (S) on 30 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.231 of 2026
Jayashree Sahoo @ Jayashree ..... Petitioner (s)
Sahu Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedy,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 30.01.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid
arrangement.
2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer
to quash the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Special Judge, Talcher in C.T(S) Case No.221 of
2024.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the Petitioner had
lodged a written report before the IIC of Rengali Dam Site
P.S alleging therein that on 12.06.2021 at 5:30 pm, accused
persons, named, Srinibas Sahu, Bipini Sahu, Biprabara
Sahu, Saroj Sahu and Manoj Sahu came to her house and
suddenly started attacking her as well as her mother-in-
law Basanti Sahu, Sister-in-law Gouri Sahu, husband-
Dillip Kumar Sahu and her brother-in-law-Prasanta
Kumar Sahu by means of crow bar, kitchen knife (paniki),
Digitally Signed Page 1 of 4.
axe and lathi causing bleeding injuries to their persons due
to land disputes. It is also alleged that accused Bipini Sahu
assaulted her head by means of an iron rod. Bipini Sahu
and Srinibas Sahu also assaulted her brother-in-law
Prasanta Kumar Sahu by means of an axe and other
general allegations are there. Basing on such information,
the IIC of Rengali Dam Site P.S registered the FIR vide
Rengali Dam Site P.S Case No. 105 of 2021 against the
accused persons for commission of the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 341,323,324,307/34 of the IPC
and proceeded with the investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
despite the gravity of the injuries and the nature of
weapons used, the I.O submitted charge sheet by deleting
Section-307 of the IPC. The petitioner, after being
summoned by the learned Trial court, on 28.10.2025 filed a
protest petition indicating therein that the I.O had
submitted charge sheet only for the offences punishable
under sections 341/323/506/34 of the IPC and deleted the
name of the Accused No.5 from the charge sheet. The
learned trial court vide order dated 14.11.2025 rejected the
protest petition filed by the Petitioner on the ground that
the protest petition was filed, after 4 years from the alleged
incident. But, the learned trial court has failed to appreciate
Digitally Signed Page 2 of 4.
the fact that the present petitioner was in custody and her
husband was also in judicial custody as there is case and
counter case between the parties and after being released
on bail, the protest petition was filed. The delay caused in
preferring the protest petition was neither intentional nor
deliberate for which the learned trial court in order to
unearth the truth should have allowed the protest petition
for the just decision of the case. The relevant portion of the
order is extracted hereunder:
"After proper investigation the I.O. has
submitted the Charge Sheet vide Rengli P.S.
C S No.118 dated 31.07.2021 and
accordingly cognizance for the offences
U/sr^41/323/506/34 has been taken by the
competent court in the year 2021 and after
lapse of long lapse of 4 years without any
changing circumstances the petitioners have
preferred this petition and as per the settled
proposition of law cognizance against the
offence cannot be taken twice rather, if any
material evidence comes during trial then the
court may alter the charge at the time of
hearing. So, when cognizance has been taken
by the learned J.M.F.C. (C.T), Talcher for the
alleged offence in the year 2021 no protest has
been filed by that time prior to taking
cognizance of the same and subsequently
thereof, such a petition after long span after
Digitally Signed Page 3 of 4.
commitment to the Court of Sessions is not
tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly,
petition being devoid of merit is rejected
outrightly. Put up later for hearing on
charge."
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner and on going through the order
passed by the learned court below, this Court does not find
any infirmity in the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Special Judge, Talcher in C.T(S). Case
No.221 of 2024 so as to warrant interference by this Court.
6. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
Digitally Signed Page 4 of 4.
