The court emphasized that at the charge-framing stage, all materials must be thoroughly examined to determine if a prima facie case exists, rather than merely accepting the chargesheet.

ORDER :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order at Annexure-5 dated 10^th November, 2025 passed in connection with C.T. Case No.245 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, whereby, an application under Section 250 BNSS moved by him seeking discharge from the offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS was rejected on the grounds inter alia that such a decision is against the weight of evidence on record and not in accordance with the settled position of law.

3. Perused the FIR at Annexure-1 and a copy of the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 series filed along with the relevant documents.

4. Opposite party No.2 is the victim, who lodged the FIR i.e. Annexure-1 and as a result, Mahila P.S Case No.39 of 2025 was registered under Section 64(2)(m) and 351(2) BNS besides Section 27 Arms Act. At the end of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner deleting the offence under Section 27 Arms Act. Before commencement of trial, the petitioner moved the application under Section 250 BNSS demanding discharge from one of the offences alleged claiming that no case of rape is prima facie made out punishable under Section 64(2)(m) BNS, however, the same was disposed of by the order dated 10^th November, 2025 i.e. Annexure-5, which is under challenge at present.

5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions, such as, Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vrs. The State of Maharashtra and another decided on 26^th May, 2025 in SLP (Crl.) No.10044 of 2024 and Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag Vrs. State of Telangana and another disposed of by the Apex Court on 29^th May, 2025 in SLP (Crl.) No(s).3316 of 2023 to buttress the argument that no offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS is prima facie made out and that apart, the complaint of opposite party No.2 could not have been entertained due to delay in lodging of the FIR. The decision of this Court in Manoj Kumar Munda Vrs. State of Odisha and another in CRLMC No.4485 of 2024 decided on 14^th February, 2025 is also pressed into service by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel to submit that considering the nature of allegations revealed from the FIR and also the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 series, it is a case of failing to keep up a promise by the petitioner and not a false promise, hence, offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS is not made out. The contention is that opposite party No.2 was in relationship with the petitioner and at last, the report was lodged by her alleging rape against him. Referring to statements of opposite party No.2 and her daughter, namely, Sreyashree Behura recorded under Section 180 BNSS, it is made to suggest that the relationship between the parties was in good terms till the very end and at last, the FIR i.e. Annexure-1 was lodged only after when the marriage between them did not materialize. Under such circumstances, according to Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner, no offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS is established even considering the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 series with all the relevant documents filed therewith accepted at its face value.

6. Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, would submit that no any wrong or error committed by the learned court below in rejecting the plea for discharge for the alleged offence while considering the application i.e. Annexure-4, hence, the impugned order dated 10^th November, 2025 at Annexure-5 is perfectly justified. The further submission is that whether, it is a case of false promise