Page 1 of 7

CRLREV No.312 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OFORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV No.312 of 2026

In the matter of an application under Section 442 of

B.N.S.S.

------------------

Sudarsan Jena …. Petitioner

-versus-

1. State of Orissa

2.Kishore Kumar Panda

3. Bijaya Kumar Sethi

4.DitimayeeSharma

(ORS)

5. Sasmita Bhuyan

…. Opposite Party

For Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. B.L. Tripathy, ASC

CORAM:

JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

DATE OF HEARING : 06.07.2026

DATE OfJUDGMENT :_ 19.09.2026

V. Narasingh, J. Heard Mr. Chand, learned counsel for

the Petitioner and Mr. Tripathy, learned ASC for the

State.

Page 2 of 7

CRLREV No.312 of 2026

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed

assailing the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the

learned J.M.F.C. (Cognizance Taking), Khordha, in

1.C.C. No. 60 of 2025, whereby the complaint filed

by the Petitioner was dismissed.

The prayer in the Criminal Revision reads

as under:

“xxx xxxxxx

Under such circumstance the Petitioner

therefore Pray that this Hon'ble Court may

kindly be Pleased to Admit the Revision,

issue Notice to the Opp-Parties L.C.R. be

Called for and after hearing the Parties the

Order of Dismissal of Complain Case by Order

dated 02.04.2026 Passed in Complain Case

Number 1.C.C No-60 of 2025 by the Court of

learned J.M.F.C (Cog Taking), Khurda may

kindly be set aside.

xxx xxxxxx”

2. For convenience of reference, the parties

shall be referred to as per their status in the

complaint case.

Page 3 of 7

CRLREV No.312 of 2026

2-A. In the said complaint petition, present

Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 were arrayed as accused

Nos. 1 to 4.

3. The Petitioner claims to be the President of

Maa Bhuiyani (Banadurga) Trust, Bolagada. It is

alleged that, while the application for settlement of

the land in favour of the Trust was pending, on

10.09.2025, without initiating any lawful proceeding

under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment

Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OPLE Act’)

or issuing any notice of eviction, the accused

officials, in collusion with unknown persons and by

misuse of their official position, forcibly entered the

temple premises along with police personnel,

abused the Complainant in filthy language,

criminally intimidated him with threats of demolition

and death, attempted to lock the temple premises,

forcibly broke open the locks of the store room,

donation box, office room, and shop room, entered

the premises and removed cash and other articles

without preparing any seizure list or furnishing any

acknowledgment.

3-A. It is further alleged that they acted on the

basis of a mala fide requisition for police

deployment, thereby taking the law into their own

hands. According to the Petitioner, such acts were

Page 4 of 7

CRLREV No.312 of 2026

committed in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to

cause wrongful loss to the Trust and wrongful gain

to third parties having enmity with the Complainant,

resulting in financial loss of about Rs.10,00,000/-,

interference with a long-standing public place of

worship, and harassment, intimidation, and loss of

reputation to the Complainant and other members

of the locality, thereby constituting offences

punishable under the BNS, 2023.

3-B. Thereafter, 1.C.C. Case No. 60 of 2025 was

instituted, inter alia, on the ground of non-

registration of the F.I.R.

4. In reply to the notice under Section 223(2)

of the BNSS, accused No. 1 (the Sub-Collector-

Opposite Party No.1) took the stand that the actions

complained of were taken strictly in the discharge of

his official duties, in the public interest, and on the

basis of the requisition made by the Tahasildar,

Bolgarh (Letter No. 4577 dated 10.09.2025).

4-A. The further stand of accused No. 1 is that

the said requisition stated that the Managing

Committee of Maa Bhuiyani Devi Pitha had applied

for opening a locked room and preparation of an

inventory. Pursuant thereto, accused No. 1 issued

Letter No. 7931/Judicial dated 10.09.2025 to the

Superintendent of Police, Khordha, requesting

Page 5 of 7

CRLREV No.312 of 2026

deployment of police personnel, and also directed

the appointment of an Executive Magistrate

(accused No. 3) to supervise the process in order to

maintain transparency and accountability.

4-B.It is contended that the said action was

administrative in nature and was taken on the basis

of official communication and the request of the

Tahasildar, and not on any independent or mala fide

initiative of accused No. 1.

4-C.It is further contended that the allegations of

misuse of official position are false, baseless and

fabricated and that accused No. 1 has since been

transferred from the post of Sub-Collector and is no

longer holding the said office.

Referring to the aforesaid facts, accused

No. 1 sought dismissal of the complaint.

5. The stand taken by the other accused

persons (Opposite Party Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the

present revision) is more or less similar. The

common thread of their defence being that the acts

complained of were performed in the due discharge

of their official duties.

6. The Complainant- Petitioner, however,

refuted the aforesaid stand that the alleged acts

were committed in the due discharge of official

duties.

Page 6 of 7

CRLREV No.312 of 2026

7. On perusal of the complaint petition and

the allegations made therein, the Court in seisin

came to the conclusion that the acts complained of

bear a reasonable nexus with the discharge of

official duties and could not be termed as acts done

in a personal capacity or with any unlawful intent.

8. On a cogent analysis of the materials on record

and the initial statement of the Complainant, and

taking note of the fact that “the allegations of theft

of cash, criminal intimidation, abuse, and criminal

conspiracy, as detailed in the complaint petition, do

not find place in sworn statements.”, the learned

JMFC (Cog. Taking), Khurda, came to the finding

that no materials could be brought on record to

substantiate the allegations made in the complaint

petition and considering the materials on record, it

came to a categorical finding that the basic

ingredients of the offences under Sections 303(2)

and 351(2) of the BNS, as well as the offence of

criminal conspiracy under Sections 61(2) read with

3(5) of the BNS, 2023, were not made out.

8-A. The learned Court further negated the

contention of the Complainant that the deployment

of police force, on due requisition, can be termed as

an unlawful assembly and, accordingly, held that no

offence under Sections 191 and 192 of the BNS was

Page 7 of 7

CRLREV No.312 of 2026

made out, while also finding no material to

substantiate the alleged offence under Section 201

of the BNS.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.

Chand, submits that the learned Court in seisin

misdirected itself in coming to a conclusion that the

acts were committed in the discharge of public

functions and, therefore, the impugned order

warrants interference.

10. In the light of the discussions made

above, upon perusal of the materials on record,

including the complaint petition annexed to the

revision petition and Letter No. 4577 dated

10.09.2025, being the requisition of the Tahasildar

referred to in the impugned order, this Court does

not find any infirmity in the order impugned so as to

warrant interference in exercise of its revisional

jurisdiction.

11. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed

of.

(V. Narasingh)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 19

th

September, 2026/Soumya

21.091.2026/Uploaded