KAMESH CHANDRA PARIDA@PINTU@KAMESH PARIDA vs STATE OF ODISHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV NO.01 of 2026

CNR NO. ODHC010000122026


(In the matter of application under Section 438 & 442

of BNSS).


Kamesh Chandra Parida @
Pintu @ Kamesh Parida
… Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Another Opposite Parties
…


For Petitioner : Mr. A. Ray, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Rout, Addl. PP
Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate (OP
No.2)

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY


DATE OF HEARING:02.11.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.11.2026
G. Satapathy, J.


1.
The petitioner by way of this revision
application seeks to challenge the impugned order
dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned SDJM,
Bhadrak in GR Case No.687 of 2024 taking cognizance
of offences punishable U/Ss.294/304 of IPC.
2.
The facts in nutshell is that the deceased Bijay
Kumar Panda was having a grocery shop at Patharadi
Chhak in his village and on 20.03.2024, the petitioner
CRLREV No.01 of 2026 Page 1 of 7

purchased some grocery articles amounting to Rs.180/-
from the shop of the deceased, but the petitioner paid
only Rs.140/- through PhonePe and when the deceased
demanded the further amount, the petitioner allegedly
attacked the deceased as a result, the deceased fell
down and was subsequently shifted to the hospital
where he was declared as dead. Accordingly, an FIR
being lodged by the nephew of the deceased came to
be registered against the petitioner in Bhadrak Town PS
Case No.157 of 2024 for commission of offence
U/S.341/294/323/324/302 of IPC, but on conclusion of
investigation, charge-sheet was placed against the
petitioner for commission of offence punishable
U/S.294/304-A of IPC, however, the learned SDJM took
cognizance of the offences indicated supra . Accordingly,
the petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned order
has preferred this revision.
3.
In the course of hearing, Mr. Anshuman Ray,
learned counsel for the revision-petitioner submits that
from the statement of material witnesses recorded
CRLREV No.01 of 2026 Page 2 of 7

U/S.164 of Cr.PC together with the inquest report and
the PM report of the deceased, no case U/S.304 is
made out against the petitioner and thereby, the
Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against
the Petitioner for commission of offence punishable
U/Ss.294/304-A of IPC, however, the learned SDJM has
erroneously passed the impugned order taking
cognizance of offence U/S.294/304 of IPC and thereby,
the impugned order needs to be set aside. Accordingly,
Mr. Ray, prays to allow the revision.
3.1.
On the other hand, Mr. Biswajit Mohanty,
learned counsel for OP No.2-cum-informant by placing
the order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.3588 of 2026 submits that the
informant has in fact approached the Apex Court for the
infirmity in the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner
for commission of offence punishable U/S.294/304-A of
IPC, but this is a clear case of murder which is
punishable U/S. 302 of IPC and the Apex Court on
being moved has permitted the informant in the SLP to
CRLREV No.01 of 2026 Page 3 of 7

raise such points before the learned Court in seisin over
the matter to consider the said issue in accordance with
law looking to the evidence available on record. Mr.
Nayak, learned counsel accordingly submits that the
learned Court in seisin over the matter on being moved
has passed the impugned order taking cognizance of
offence punishable U/S.294/304 of IPC, but it is a case
of Sec.302 of IPC and, therefore, the revision may
kindly be dismissed.
3.2
. Mr. S.K. Rout, learned Addl. PP while
supporting the impugned order prays to dismiss the
criminal revision.
4.
After having considered the rival submission
and upon perusal of record, it appears that the
petitioner seriously challenges the impugned order for
taking cognizance of offence U/Ss.294/304 of IPC, but
there appears allegation against the petitioner for
attacking the deceased and giving fist blows to his left
side chest resulting him in falling down on the road and
subsequently, succumbing to death. The petitioner in
CRLREV No.01 of 2026 Page 4 of 7

fact challenges the impugned order by placing reliance
on the statement of witnesses recorded U/S.164 of
Cr.PC, but the Court has to consider all the statements
on record together with the documents collected by the
Investigating Agency in the course of investigation. It is
further claimed by the petitioner that there was no
intention on the part of the petitioner to cause death of
the deceased, but since the offences for which
cognizance has been taken can only prima facie be
considered for the knowledge of the offender, since the
offence U/S. 304-II of IPC is associated with knowledge
that is likely to cause death of a person.
5.
Even otherwise, the impugned order was
passed way back on 09.06.2025, but in the meantime,
more than a year and half have already elapsed. In
addition, the petitioner can also raise all these points
before the learned trial Court at the time of framing of
charge and the trial Court is also not powerless to
address the contention of the petitioner to find out
prima facie what offence the petitioner has committed
CRLREV No.01 of 2026 Page 5 of 7

by such Act for the purpose of framing of charge. It is
also not in dispute that the informant has approached
the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)
No.3588 of 2026, wherein the Apex Court has passed
the following order: -
“1. After hearing learned counsel, at present,
we are not inclined to interfere with the order
impugned. However, the petitioner is permitted
to bring to the notice of the trial Court that the
charge-sheet as filed under Section 294 and
304A IPC is not justified and in fact, it is a case
of Sec.302 of IPC. On raising such point, the
trial Court shall consider the said issue in
accordance with law looking to the evidence
available on record. If needed, the trial Court
may ask for necessary investigation and report
to ascertain the contentions.
2. With the aforesaid observation, at present,
the special leave petition stands disposed of.”

6.
It is no doubt contended on behalf of the
petitioner that the wife of the deceased has in fact
claimed insurance amount against the policy taken by
her deceased-husband by showing the cause of death
of the deceased to be on account of accident, but such
document being not the part of investigation, and the
document produced by the petitioner in support of such
CRLREV No.01 of 2026 Page 6 of 7

claim can only be considered for his defence at
appropriate stage, but not at the stage of taking
cognizance of offence, such contention is liable to be
rejected only.
7.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and on
consideration of the materials placed on record
together with the further remedy still available to the
petitioner to raise all those points at the time of
framing of charge, this Court does not consider it
proper to interfere with the impugned order at this
stage after lapse of near about one and half years of
passing of it.
8.
In the result, the criminal revision stands
dismissed, but the petitioner is at liberty to raise all
these points as available to him at the stage of framing
of charge, if the same has not been done.

Signature Not Verified
(G. Satapathy)
Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 13 day of November, 2026/Jayakrushna

Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Kataka
Date: 13-Nov-2026 18:17:03
CRLREV No.01 of 2026 Page 7 of 7