CRLMP/819/2026 of SK. NIAMAT BUX Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 9 July 2026

ORDER

Order No. 09.07.2026

(Through Hybrid Mode)

02.

1. This CRLMP has been filed with the following prayer:- “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that your lordships be graciously pleased to:

i) direct the Opposite parties to register the FIR of the petitioner and take immediate action against the culprits, And

ii) direct the opposite parties for protection of the petitioner who is a senior citizen having no manpower And

iii) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.”

2. The Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage : (2016) 6 SCC 277, has observed as follows:- “2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (2008) 2 SCC 409, AIR 2008 SC 907, that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case (2008) 2 SCC 409, AIR 2008 SC 907 because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.

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 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.”

3. After hearing Mr. Biswabhusan Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, perusing the averments in the CRLMP and Annexures and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra), the CRLMP is disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to avail alternative remedy, if so advised.

4. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merit of the allegations in the complaint.

5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(Savitri Ratho)

Judge

Sukanta Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 10-Jul-2026 10:47:17 Signature Not Verified