Orissa High Court
An Application Under Article 226 And 227 … vs Union Of India on 12 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No.122 of 2026
An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Chaturi Naik .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. Union of India
2.The Zonal Office of National
Commission for Schedule Caste, Kolkatta
3. The Director General and Inspector
General of Police, Cuttack
4. The Superintendent of Police, Angul
5. Inspector-in-charge, Gopal Prasad .... Opposite Parties
Police Station, Talcher
Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode :
For Petitioner : Mr. Rabi Narayan Mohanty,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Raj Bhushan Dash, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
..................................................................................
Date of Judgment: 12.02.2026
………………………………………………………………………..
Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMP has been filed with the prayer to direct the
IIC, Gopal Prasad Police Station to register the written complaint of
the petitioner as FIR and investigate into the matter and complete the
same as per law and direct the concerned authorities to take
appropriate action to bring the Opp. Party No.4 & 5 into court of
CRLMP No. 122 of 2026 Page 1 of 9
//2//
justice under relevant provisions of BNS and pass any order which
may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.
FACT OF THE CASE IN BRIEF
2. The grievance of the petitioner in short is that she is the
owner of a piece of land under Khata No. 129 stands recorded in the
name of one Radhika Nayak and after death of the original recorded
tenant, the petitioner being her sole legal heir became the absolute
owner of the land and after her marriage stayed there with her family.
But recently the MCL acquired the landed property in village
Ekadala, but no compensation was paid to the petitioner nor any
benefits were given to the petitioner and her family such as
employment benefit, monetary compensation etc. So the petitioner
has sent various representations to higher Authorities requesting to
pay the compensation for her land along with all the relevant
documents such as legal heir certificate, Identity proof, etc. But on
31.10.2025, the MCL authority came to the land of the petitioner and
started illegally demolishing her residential house without any prior
notice. When she and her family members requested the MCL
authorities not to demolish their house, the MCL authority assaulted
CRLMP No. 1743 of 2025 Page 2 of 9
//3//
them mercilessly and also abused them in obscene languages in public
aspersing to their caste and also assaulted her daughter-in-law and
tore her clothes with intent to outrage her modesty. And finally they
forcefully and illegally demolished the house of the petitioner
consisting of 5 rooms worth Rs.12 lakhs and destroyed the household
articles of the petitioner worth Rs.4 lakhs. Though the petitioner
immediately approached the Gopal Prasad police station with a
written report, but the local police did not receive her written
complaint. Thereafter, the petitioner sent her complaint to the IIC,
Gopalprasad Police Station through speed post on the same day and
although her complaint has been received by the IIC on 10.01.2026,
but no FIR has been registered till date. On the same day the
petitioner has sent her complaint to the Superintendent of Police,
Angul, DG of Police, Odisha and the National Commission for
Scheduled Caste of India through speed post seeking necessary
action.
SUBMISSIONS
3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that although it is mandatory for the police to register an FIR if the
complaint discloses cognizable offences; referring to Section-173(1)
CRLMP No. 1743 of 2025 Page 3 of 9
//4//
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 23(BNSS) and also to
provide a copy of the information as recorded under Section 173(1) of
the BNSS to the informant, but the IIC, Gopal Prasad Police station
and the Superintendent of Police, Angul have committed negligence
denying justice to the petitioner. The said negligence is contrary to the
law and attracts punishment.
4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on
the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs.
State of UP : AIR 2014 SC 187 and Kodungallur Film Society vs.
Union of India : (2018) l0 SCC 713 360.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT
5. In the case of Sakiri Basu vs. State of UP and others reported
in (2008) 2 SCC 409, this Court has held as follows;
“24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of
the view that although Section 156(3) is verybriefly worded,
there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and
/or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police
station to hold a proper investigation and take all such
necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper
investigation including monitoring the same. Even though
these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in
the above provision.
25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often
find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has notCRLMP No. 1743 of 2025 Page 4 of 9
//5//been registered at the police station and/or a proper
investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the
High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should
not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to
interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his
alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section
36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is
of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate
under Section 156(3).
xxx xxx xxx
27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has
very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to
ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can
monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is
done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The
High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ
petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because
a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered
by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation
has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the
remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the
concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a
criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by
filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a
writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an
alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily
interfere.
In the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of UP reported in
(2014) 2 SCC 1, this Court has held as follows;
“111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the
Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable
offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a
situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, aCRLMP No. 1743 of 2025 Page 5 of 9
//6//preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain
whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary
inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of
such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith
and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief
for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering
offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken
against erring officers who do not register the FIR if
information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the
veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to
ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable
offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry
is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case.
The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be
made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating
criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in
reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the
reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of
all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused
and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made
time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The
fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the
General Diary entry.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is
the record of all information received in a police station, we
CRLMP No. 1743 of 2025 Page 6 of 9
//7//
direct that all information relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an
inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the
said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry
must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”
In the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant
Yashwant Dhage and Others; 2016 (6) SCC 277, the Supreme
Court has held as follows:
“”3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such
writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions
and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such
writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must
avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate
concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the
Magistrate will d ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration
of the first information report and also ensure a proper
investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the
investigation.
4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned
judgment¹ of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set
aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper
investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156(3) CrPC
and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the
SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a
proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the
investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as
investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any
material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learnedCRLMP No. 1743 of 2025 Page 7 of 9
//8//Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the
impugned order of the High Court.”
Kodungallur Film Society (supra) was a case where the
Supreme Court laid down in guidelines to effectivate the modalities
for preventive action and adding teeth to enquiry and investigation
and for assessing damages wherever a mass destruction to property
takes place due to protests. It is not relevant for deciding this
CRLMP.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
6. I find that only one page of the written complaint has been
annexed to the CRLMP. That apart, the learned counsel has not
produced the copies of the decisions on which he relies upon. The
decisions were however downloaded and perused.
7. There is no dispute that where a complaint/information
submitted to the police discloses a cognizable offence, a case should
be registered and investigation conducted.
8. But where the police fails to register a case, the complainant
has the remedy of approaching the Magistrate under the Cr.P.C. and
now under the BNSS.
CRLMP No. 1743 of 2025 Page 8 of 9
//9//
9. So, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and
perusing the CRLMP and its annexures and in view of the decisions
of the Supreme Court referred to above, I am not inclined to issue any
direction to the Opposite Parties for registration of a case, in exercise
of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. The CRLMP is disposed of observing that, if the petitioner is
so advised she may avail the alternate remedy which is available to
her under law
11. With this observation, the CRLMP is disposed of.
12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
………………….
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 12th February, 2026/Subhalaxmi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
CRLMP No. 1743 of 2025
Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Page 9 of 9
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 13-Feb-2026 20:57:18