Orissa High Court
Bijayalaxmi Das vs State Of Odisha on 30 April, 2026
Author: Savitri Ratho
Bench: Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No. 413 of 2026
An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Bijayalaxmi Das .... Petitioner
-versus-
1.State of Odisha
2.The S.P., Kendrapara .... Opp. Parties
3. IIC, Marshaghai Police Station
Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode :
For Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Chandra Dash, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.J. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
................................................................................................
Date of Hearing: 23.04.2026 Date of Judgment : 30.04.2026
…………………………………………………………………………………….
Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMP has been filed to direct the
Opposite Party No.3 to register the FIR and to cause investigation
thereunder.
ALLEGATION
2. The allegation of the petitioner is that on 26.12.2025, she had
lodged the complaint/F.I.R. before the police alleging therein that on
CRLMP No.413 of 2026 Page 1 of 13
26.12.2025 some unknown persons forcibly kidnapped her son namely
Debiprasad Das aged about 42 years with an intention to kill him. Her
son had previous dispute with some local people of Garajanga under the
Marshaghai PS. and such antisocial people murdered her son. He never
returned to her house since 26.12.2025. But, the police officer refused
to register FIR and trace out her son. He assaulted the petitioner by fist
blow and kick blow mercilessly and scolded her in filthy languages and
threatened her with dire consequences. He only made an entry in the
Diary. The Copy of the Diary Entry No-24508043250120 is annexed as
Annexure-1.
SUBMISSION
3. Mr. P. C. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is an old lady aged about 65 years and she had submitted
report before the police stating that unknown persons had kidnapped
her son, as he had previous dispute with some local people, but the
police did not register any FIR and till date her son has not been traced.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case should have
been registered against unknown persons regarding kidnapping of the
son of the petitioner on the basis of the information given by her to the
IIC on 26.12.2025 and investigation conducted in to the matter, but they
have only made Station Diary Entry.
CRLMP No.413 of 2026 Page 2 of 13
He relies on the decision in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of
UP reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 in support of his submission.
4. Mr. S. J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel produces
the instructions dated 22.04.2026 of the IIC, Marsaghai Police Station
as well as the copy of the missing person Registration No. 120 of 2025
of Marsaghai Police Station along with the copy of the information
dated 26.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner to the IIC, Marsaghai
Police Station on the basis of the which MMR 120 of 2025 has been
registered.
5. Mr. S. J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel relying
on the instructions dated 22.04.2026 of the IIC, Marsaghai Police
Station submits that on 26.12.2025 the petitioner along with her
younger son Babu Prasad Das had appeared in the Police Station and
submitted a report stating that on 17.12.2025 her elder son Litu
@Debiprasad Das had left the house by taking TVS Star City
motorcycle of her younger son Babuprasad Das bearing regd. No.
OR05AC7808 but did not return to home. As he had no cellphone, he
could not be contacted. Although they searched for him but they could
not trace him. Basing on such report, Marshaghai PS MMR(Man
Missing Registration) No. 120 dated 26.12.2025 has been registered
and SI P.K Kandulna was enquiring into the matter. The copy of
CRLMP No.413 of 2026 Page 3 of 13
missing person acknowledgement was granted to the petitioner and
VHF message has been sent to all IIC/OIC of Police stations and out
post of Odisha vide RM No. 2806 dt.26.12.2025 regarding missing of
Litu @Debiprasad Das with TVS Star City motorcycle bearing regd.
No. OR05AC7808 to keep sharp look out for him. Prayer has also been
made to the SP, Kendrapara for Draft CIG publication of the MMR
report on 01.02.2026 for tracing the missing person. During enquiry,
spy was also engaged to find out any clue about the missing person, but
with no fruitful result. Probable places were searched. Associates,
friends and relatives of the missing person were contacted, but they
could not give any clue about his present whereabouts. It is also stated
that Litu @Debiprasad Das is a hardcore criminal and involved in series
of cases like, murder dacoity, Robbery, extortion, Arms Act in different
Police Stations and the details of the same have been indicated in the
instruction and after being released on bail, it is possible that he may
have absconded from the locality to avoid trial. On 26.12.2025, the
petitioner had submitted a report stating that her son was missing and
has not made any allegations to make out an offence under Section
103/140/142/3(5) of the BNS. The copy of the said report is produced
with the instruction and is taken on record.
6. The allegations that the IIC refused to register an FIR, abused,
CRLMP No.413 of 2026 Page 4 of 13
assaulted and threatened the petitioner being gained over by the accused
persons has also been denied. The details of the 33 cases pending
against the son of the petitioner indicated in the instructions, are
extracted below;
“1. Marshaghai PS Case No. 67 Dt. 6.5.11 w/s 387/506/34
IPC/25 Arms Act
2. Marshaghai PS Case No. 68 D1, 06.05.11 u/s 384/506/34 IPC
25 Arms Act
3. Marshaghai PS Case No 69 Dt. 15.05.12 u/s 307/387/34
1PC/25/27 Arms Act
4. Marshaghai PS Case No. 115 D1. 9.7.12 u/s 120(b)/326/307
IIPC/25/27 Arms Act
5. Marshaghai PS Case No. 142 Dt. 18.05.13 u/s 18.05.13 u/s
387/307/326/34 IPC/25/27 Arms Act
6. Marshaghai PS Case No. 224 Dt. 15.08.13 u/s 302/326/34 IPC
7. Marshaghai PS Case No. 258 Dt. 22.09.13 u/s
341/294/302/120(b) IPC /25/27 Arms Act
8. Marshaghai PS Case No. 103 Dt. 11.05.14 u/s
341/323/294/120(B)/307 IPC 25/27
9. Marshaghai PS Case No. 220 Dt. 13.10.14 u/s 399/402 IPC/25
Arms Act
10. Marshaghai PS Case No. 223 Dt. 18.10.14 u/s
302/120(B)/201/212 213/216/34 IPC /25/27 Arms Act
11. Marshaghai PS Case No. 260 Dt. 30.11.14 u/s
CRLMP No.413 of 2026 Page 5 of 13
307/506/120(B) IPC/25/27 Arms Act
12. Patkura PS Case No. 01 Dt. 02.01.09 u/s 307/34 IPC/9(b) I.E.
Act
13. Patkura PS Case No. 27 Dt. 31.01.09 u/s 294/387/307/34 IPC
9(b) 1.E. Act
14. Patkura PS Case No.130 Dt. 08.05.09 u/s 399/402 IPC/9(b)
1.E. Act/S Explosive Act
15. Patkura PS Case No. 317 Dt. 12.11.08 u/s 399/402 IPC/25
Arms Act
16. Abhayachandrapu PS 128 Dt. 16.10.12 u/s 341/109/307/34
IPC/25/27 Arms Act
17. Chauliaganja PS Dist-Cuttack Case No. 223 Dt. 08.12.14 u/s
399/402 IPC /25/27 Arms Act
18. Chauliaganja PS Dist-Cuttack Case No 218/14, U/S 387 IPC
19. Paradeep PS Dist.-Jagatsinghpur PS Case No.180 Dt.
24.06.14 u/s 353/307/332/120(B) IPC 25(a)/27 Arms Act
20. Paradeep PS Dist.-Jagatsinghpur PS Case No. 110 Dt.
22.06.15 u/s 307/294/506/109/34 IPC /25(1) (b)/27 Arms Act
21. Paradeep PS Dist.-Jagatsinghpur PS Case No. 98 Dt.
30.05.16 u/s 307/34 IPC /25(1)(b)/27 Arms Act
22. Sadar PS Kendrapara Case No. 26 Dt. 24.01.16 u/s
302/120(b) IPC /25/27 Arms Act
23. Tirtol PS Dist.-Jagatsinghpur Case No. 208/10 U/s 395/397
IPC/25/27 Arms Act/9 (b) I.E. Act
24. Patkura P.S Case No-37 Dt-23.02.19 U/S 294/307/34
CRLMP No.413 of 2026 Page 6 of 13
IPC/25/27 Arms Act/3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST(POA) Act
25. Marshaghai P.S Case No-32 dt 23.02.19 U/s
294/341/323/427/307/506/34 IPC/25/27 Arms Act
26. Marshaghai P.S Case No-37 Dt. 25.02.19 u/s 307/353
IPC/25/27 Arms Act
27. Marshaghai P.S case No. 68 dt. 20.03.2020 u/s
294/341/323/307/506 IPC/25 Arms Act
28. Marshaghai P.S Case No-284 dt 18.11.19 U/s-294/506/507
IPC
29. Marshaghai P.S Case No-315 dt 19.12.19 U/s-294/385/507/34
IPC/25/27 Arms Act
30. Patkura PS Case no. 125 Dt. 20.06.2020 U/s-
294/341/506/392/307 IPC/ 25/27 Arms Act/3(1)(1)(s) 2(va) SC &
ST POA Act
31. Marshaghai P.S case No 381 dtd 25.09.2022 U/s-399/402
IPC/25 Arms Act
32. Marshaghai P.S case No 99 dtd 25.04.2024 U/s-
294/341/323/3548/506/387/307 IPC
33. Marshaghai P.S case No. 151 dtd 18.08.2024 U/s-
126(2)/117(2)/296/351(3)/109, BNS.”
STATUTORY PROVISION
7. Sections 173(4) and 175(3) of the BNSS are extracted below for
easy reference:-
CRLMP No.413 of 2026 Page 7 of 13
“Section 173(4)-
Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an
officer in charge of a police station to record the information
referred to in sub-section (1), may send the substance of such
information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of
Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information
discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either
investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made
by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided
by this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an
officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence
failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to
the Magistrate.”
(emphasis supplied)
“Section – 175 (3) –
Any Magistrate empowered under section 210 may, after
considering the application supported by an affidavit made under
sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as
he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the
police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned.”
(emphasis supplied)
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
8. 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:
CRLMP No.413 of 2026 Page 8 of 13
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, a 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
CRLMP No.413 of 2026 Page 9 of 13
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 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,CRLMP No.413 of 2026 Page 10 of 13
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 learned Magistrate shall be
uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High
Court.”
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
9. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of
Sakiri Basu (supra) and Lalita Kumari (supra) it is not in dispute that
where a cognizable offence is made out, the police is duty bound to
register a case. In view of the decision in the case of Sudhir
Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra), it is not in dispute that the petitioner has
alternative remedy of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate in case
of inaction by the police and in all cases where there is allegation of
inaction by the police in registering a case or improper investigation,
the High Court is not required to interfere.
CRLMP No.413 of 2026 Page 11 of 13
10. Perusal of the CRLMP reveals that the copy of the complaint
claimed to have been given at the Marsaghai Police Station on
26.12.2025 has not been filed. The MMR No. 120 dated 26.12.2025 has
been annexed as Annexure-1. However, the petition dated 25.03.2026
which has been sent to the SP, Kendrapara on 25.03.2026 by speed post
has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the CRLMP. The complaint has
however been produced by the learned State Counsel.
11. As the information/complaint of the petitioner did not disclose any
cognizable offence, there was no necessity for the police to register any
case in the Police Station on 26.12.2025. As the petitioner had reported
that her son was missing, a MMR was rightly registered and steps taken
for tracing the whereabouts of the son of the petitioner.
12. It is found that MMR is pending since almost four months, but son
of the petitioner has not been traced. It has been subsequently alleged by
the petitioner that some antisocial persons have murdered her son.
13. As this allegation discloses a cognizable offence, although it is
against unknown persons, if the petitioner submits a properly constituted
complaint before the IIC, Marshaghai Police Station within a period of
two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and acted upon in
accordance with law. If the petitioner has any further grievance, it is open
CRLMP No.413 of 2026 Page 12 of 13
to her to follow the procedure under Section 173(4) and Section 175(3)
of the BNSS.
14. It is also observed that if enquiry/investigation reveal that the son of
the petitioner Litu @ Debi Prasad Das is alive and had left the village to
avoid arrest by the police and this was/is in the knowledge of the
petitioner, steps in accordance with law shall be taken against the
petitioner and her son.
15. The CRLMP is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and
directions.
………………………
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated 30th April, 2026/Subhalaxmi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI
SAHOO CRLMP No.413 of 2026 Page 13 of 13
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 06-May-2026 20:08:40
[ad_1]
Source link
