IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.127 of 2011 Basanti Mallick ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. -

-versus-

State of Orissa and Ors. ..... Opp. Parties Represented By Adv. –

U.R. Jena, A.G.A.

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

08.12.2025 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. None appears for the Petitioner as well as the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 10. Learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party No.1 is present in Court today.

3. On perusal of the record it appears that the present leave application has been filed under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C at the instance of the informant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 18.04.2011 passed in G.R Case No.138 of 2002 which corresponds to Trial No.1028 of 2010 by the learned JMFC, Bhadrak. The abovenoted G.R was registered on the basis of a police case which was registered as Dhusuri P.S Case No.13 of 2002 for commission of an offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 294, 323, 325, 324, 506(II), 379, 149 of IPC.

4. The present Petitioner as Informant lodged the FIR before the police station alleging commission of offence by the private- Opposite Party Nos.2 to 10. Accordingly, the accused persons- Opposite Party Nos.2 to 10 faced trial and, by virtue of the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2011, they have been acquitted. Being aggrieved by such order of acquittal, the informant-petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present leave petition seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.04.2011. It is not disputed that the Petitioner was the informant in the present case which arises out of a police case that was initially registered as a G.R Case. So far the applicability of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C is concerned, undoubtedly a right has been conferred upon the State to seek leave of this Court to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3). So far sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C is concerned, a limited right has also been given to the complainant to seek leave of this Court to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, in a complaint case. However, no such right to prefer an appeal has been conferred on the informant under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.

5. Having said that, by virtue of an amendment in the year 2009, a proviso was added to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C by act 5 of 2009, which came into force w.e.f 31.12.2009. The said proviso to section 372 confers a right on the victim to prefer an appeal directly against the judgment of the acquittal to a court to which the accused would have preferred an appeal in the case of conviction. In the present case, the informant is the victim as has been defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.

6. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the present leave application at the instance of the informant arising out of a G.R case is not maintainable. The right of the victim-informant to prefer an appeal has been protected by adding the proviso to Section 372 in the year 2009. Since the judgment in the present case was delivered on 18.04.2011, it was open to the victim-informant to prefer an appeal directly under the proviso to Section 372.

7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the present application is being disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal directly under the proviso to Section 372 within four weeks to the competent court along with an application for condonation of delay. In the event any such application is filed with a prayer for condonation of delay, the same shall be considered by taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing this leave application under a misconception of law and, as such, the delay shall be considered liberally.

8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLLP stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra