Orissa High Court
CRLMP/751/2026 of BIJAY KUMAR OJHA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 7 July 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.751 of 2026 Bijay Kumar Ojha …. Petitioner Mr. Subrat Kumar Nanda, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha, represented through its Secretary, Home Department, Bhubaneswar 2. Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak 3. Inspector-in-Charge, Pirahat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No.751 of 2026
Bijay Kumar Ojha
….
Petitioner
Mr. Subrat Kumar Nanda, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented
through its Secretary, Home
Department, Bhubaneswar
2. Superintendent of Police,
Bhadrak
3. Inspector-in-Charge, Pirahat
Police Station, Dist. Bhadrak
….
Opposite Parties
Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
07.07.2026
03. (Through Hybrid Mode)
1. This CRLMP has been filed for a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 - S.P., Bhadrak to register the FIR as per Annexure-1.
2. Perused the RoR of Khata No.317 of Mouza-Narendrapur, Plot No.1248 which reveals that the land has been recorded in the name of one Bijay Ojha, Snehanlata Moharana, Kanakalata Moharana, Sabitri Ojha, son and daughters of Bhagirathi Ojha, Kalandi Ojha, Dasharathi Ojha, Saratchandra Ojha, sons of Kalpataru Ojha.
3. 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.”
4. In view of the nature of the allegations and the relationships of the parties and in view of the decision of the of the
Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra), the CRLMP is disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to avail the alternative remedy which is available to him under law.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge RKS Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJAN KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 21:46:11 Signature Not Verified