Back
2026 Supreme(Ori) 592
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.
Aswini Kumar Dash @ Chintu @ Chitu – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Another – Respondents
Crl. M.C. No. 5116 of 2025
Decided On : 13-02-2026
For the Appellant : Devashis Panda
For the Respondents: Sarita Moharana, Saroj Ku. Padhy
The Court affirmed that FIRs must disclose cognizable offences while upholding the importance of consent in sexual assault cases, regardless of the precise legal terms used in the FIR.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Criminal Miscellaneous Case - Petition filed calling into question the arrest of the Petitioner and the cognizance taken by the Court - Allegations of assault and abuse against the prosecutrix, with the court upholding the integrity of the FIR as sufficient for investigation - Court observed that the absence of consent must be presumed unless proven otherwise. (Paras 7, 9, 14)
(B) FIR - Legal requirements - The FIR is not required to contain extensive details or legal classifications, and its core requirement is to disclose a cognizable offence sufficient for police investigation. (Paras 14)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, allegedly involved in harassing a female employee, faced charges of rape after sending unsolicited gifts and coercing her, culminating in a case filed by the victim. The Petitioner contends he was falsely implicated due to personal vendetta tied to financial allegations.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no legal grounds to quash the cognizance taken and upheld that the prosecution potentially established a prima facie case.
Issues: The core issue was whether the alleged actions constituted rape without consent and if the learned J.M.F.C. possessed jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that allegations of sexual assault must be taken seriously, and if the victim establishes lack of consent, such assertions must be treated as credible unless disproven.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the case and allegations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's defense and counterarguments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning and analysis of legal standards. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. final decision regarding the case. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.
1. The Petitioner has instituted the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in Tritol P.S. Case No. 431 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.520 of 2025. The F.I.R. was registered and thereafter, a preliminary charge-sheet was subsequently. Subsequently, the Petitioner was arrested in execution of a Non-Bailable Warrant.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The F.I.R. was lodged by the elder sister of the prosecutrix, alleging that the prosecutrix, was employed as an Accountant at ‘Ashutosh Associate’ at Jagatsingpur, which is stated to be owned by the Petitioner’s brother and, due to his ill-health, it was allegedly being managed by the Petitioner himself.
(ii) The Petitioner is married to the informant and is the father of a 14 years’ old son. It is alleged that the Petitioner harboured one- sided affection towards the informant’s sister and that, on 16.03.2023, he tried to be Romeo and he allegedly proposed his love to her.
(iii) After about four months of the prosecutrix joining the establishment, it is alleged that the Petitioner, having developed an interest on her, began to show undue attention and make over affectionate inquiry about her. It is further alleged that on 03.02.2025, on the occasion of the prosecutrix’s birthday, the petitioner sent a dress to her rented accommodation which was totally an unsolicited gesture.
(iv) It is further alleged that, with an intention to take undue advantage of the prosecutrix, the Petitioner included her in various teams and took her to different places on the pretext of office tours. It is further alleged that the petitioner assigned her excessive works with a view of keeping her in the office till late hours. The prosecutrix, feeling uncomfortable, has stated to have refused to accompany him.
(v) The Petitioner allegedly even sent a truck-load of luxury household items including an AC, inverter, dressing table, bed, Godrej almirah and washing machine to their rented house and also he transferred Rs. 3,60,000/- to the prosecutrix’s account in an unsolicited manner.
(vi) Thereafter, on a subsequent day, after consuming alcohol, the Petitioner called the prosecutrix to the office, abused her and asked to accompany him to a hotel. Upon her refusal, it is further alleged that he dragged her into the office room and attempted to choke her by pressing her neck.
(vii) On 20.08.2025, in the evening, the Petitioner, accompanied by five companions, arrived at the informant’s residence and verbally abused the informant and her mother. When the informant’s father stepped outside, the Petitioner allegedly pointed out a firearm at his head, causing him to flee back inside the house and lock the door in fear.
(viii) Thereafter, the investigation was conducted, the charge-sheet was filed, and the prosecutrix was examined. Her statement under Section 182 of BNS, 2023 was recorded, wherein she categorically narrated the commission of rape by the Petitioner. The informant, prosecutrix and other witnesses were also examined under Section 180 of BNSS, 2023, during which the prosecutrix reiterated the allegation of rape.
(ix) Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner was arrested on the basis of NBW. The learned Court took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, for trial, whereupon C.T. Case No. 340 of 2025 was registered. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
