IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.5 of 2012 Baisakhu Kudei ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. -

-versus-

Akshaya Putel & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties Represented by Adv. -

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

12.12.2025 Order No.

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

2. None appears for the respective parties when the matter was taken up.

3. On perusal of the record it appears that the present application has been filed at the instance of the informant under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the judgement of acquittal dated 18.07.2011 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No.101/53 of 2008. The abovenoted Sessions Case arises out of G.R Case No.793 of 2007 which was initiated on the basis of information lodged before the police for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 366, 376, 34 of IPC against the accused persons.

4. On a careful analysis of the leave application filed by the Petitioner it appears that the same has been presented under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. However, as per the provisions contained in 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C, an application seeking leave to appeal can only be filed at the instance of the complainant in a case which arises out of a complaint case. In the present case the judgment of acquittal was delivered in a G.R Case which was registered on the basis of an F.I.R lodged at the instance of the Petitioner as informant. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the view that the present leave application is not maintainable under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, it is only the State which can seek leave to prefer an appeal against a judgment of acquittal in cases arising out of police report under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C.

5. Taking into consideration the amendment to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C, and the introduction of the new proviso w.e.f the year 2009, a right has been conferred upon on the victim to prefer an appeal against any judgment of acquittal. In the instant case, allegation has been made by the Petitioner that the daughter of the informant-petitioner had gone outside to clean the utensils after dinner and, thereafter, she did not return home. Thereafter, the informant came to learn that one Akhaya Putel of his village had kidnapped his daughter. In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner-informant can very well be termed as a victim in view of the definition ‘of victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Petitioner can very well exercise the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 to prefer an appeal directly without seeking for leave of this Court. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present application. However, leave is granted to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C along with an application for condonation of delay, within four weeks from today. In such eventuality, the appellate court shall consider the delay in presentation of the appeal liberally and pass necessary orders thereon in accordance with law.

6. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLMC stands disposed of.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)

Judge Anil Signature N o t V e r i f i e d Page 3 of 3. Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-Dec-2025 16:48:33