IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.887 of 2025 Bijendra Kumar Samal …. Petitioner Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate -Versus-

State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Parties Ms. B. Dash, ASC CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

15.12.2025 Order No.

01. 1. Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.

2. No notice is issued to opposite party No.2, namely, informant and the same is dispensed with.

3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 9^th October, 2025 as at Annexure-1 passed in connection with T.R. Case No.23 of 2025 (FTSC) by the learned Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC) under POCSO Act, Berhampur corresponding to G.R. Case No.98 of 2022 arising out of Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No.233 of 2022 on the grounds stated.

4. Referring to the FIR, a copy of which, is at Annexure-2, it is submitted by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is made out and therefore, the application was moved before the learned court below but the same stood rejected vide the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1. It is submitted that on a bare reading of the FIR and the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. i.e. Annexures-3 series, an offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is not made out at all, hence, therefore, the learned court below fell into gross error in rejecting the application demanding discharge for the said offence, hence, to that extent, the impugned decision dated

9^th October, 2025 is required to be set aside.

5. Recorded the submission of Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State, who justifies the impugned order at Annexure-1.

6. Gone through the contents of FIR i.e. Annexure-2 and it reveals that the petitioner committed the alleged mischief on the date of occurrence i.e. 5^th July, 2022, during and in course of which, the victim, a minor by then, was manhandled. Such other mischief has been alleged against the petitioner having been committed during the incident, whereafter, upon receiving the report, Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No.233 of 2022 was registered. According to the FIR, the petitioner caught hold of the hand of the victim and then committed the overt act, the details of which, have been narrated therein. On a reading of the statements of the victim during investigation and before the Magistrate, as made to reveal from Annexure-3 series, same allegations have been made by her against the petitioner. Considering the FIR and the statements of the victim, admittedly, a minor aged about 15 years at the time of alleged incident, this Court finds that no such offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act to have made out. At best, it can be said that an offence under Section 354-A IPC has been committed by the petitioner or any other offence but not an offence under the POCSO Act. Mere manhandling of the victim during the incident and the manner, in which, she was treated in the hands of the petitioner, in the considered view of the Court, has not led to commission of an offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, hence, therefore, the learned court below can be said to have fallen into error in taking cognizance of the said offence vide Annexure-1. This Court is in agreement with Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner in so far as the alleged offence is concerned and it is reiterated that the mischief has been alleged against the petitioner, which at best, may be claimed to be a case of outraging modesty of the victim and definitely not any such sexual mischief within the definition of Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the conclusion is that the impugned order dated 9^th October, 2025 at Annexure-1 is liable to be interfered with and set aside to the extent as above.

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

8. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 9^th October, 2025 as at Ann