CRLMP/794/2026 of SABITRI MUNDA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 1 July 2026

ORDER

Order No. 01.07.2026

(Through Hybrid Mode)

01.

1. This CRLMP has been filed with the following prayer:- “Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously pleased to issue an appropriate writ by directing the Opp. party Nos.3 & 4 to register the F.I.R, investigate into the matter and take appropriate against the accused persons within a stipulated time period pursuant to the petitioner's complain dt.09.04.2026 and 20.04.2026 under annexures-3 and 4, which is pending for adjudication;

And further be pleased to pass any such other order(s), direction(s) as deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case;

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

2. Mr. Kodanda Kumar Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that public authorities should not use force and Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 are duty bound to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action against Opposite Parties No. 5 and 6. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra & Others : AIR 2019 SC 4917, where it has been observed as follows:- “65. The direction has also been issued that the Dy. S.P. should conduct a preliminary inquiry to find out whether allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act, and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated. In case a cognisable offence is made out, the FIR has to be outrightly registered, and no preliminary inquiry has to be made as held in Lalita Kumari (supra) by a Constitution Bench. There is no such provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for preliminary inquiry or under the SC/ST Act, as such direction is impermissible. Moreover, it is ordered to be conducted by the person of the rank of Dy. S.P. The number of Dy. S.P. as per stand of Union of India required for such an exercise of preliminary inquiry is not available. The direction would mean that even if a complaint made out a cognizable offence, an FIR would not be registered until the preliminary inquiry is held. In case a preliminary inquiry concludes that allegations are false or motivated, FIR is not to be registered in such a case how a final report has to be filed in the Court. The direction (iv) cannot survive for the other reasons as it puts the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in a disadvantageous position in the matter of procedure visavis to the complaints lodged by members of upper caste, for later no such preliminary investigation is necessary, in that view of matter it should not be necessary to hold preliminary inquiry for registering an offence under the Atrocities Act of 1989.”

“67. We do not doubt that directions encroach upon the field reserved for the legislature and against the concept of protective discrimination in favour of downtrodden classes under Article 15(4) of the Constitution and also impermissible within the parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that direction Nos.(iii) and

(iv) issued by this Court deserve to be and are hereby recalled and consequently we hold that direction No. (v), also vanishes. The review petitions are allowed to the extent mentioned above.”

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. After hearing Mr. Kodanda Kumar Bhuyan, 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 the alternate remedy which is available to her under law.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the allegations of the Petitioner or the applicability of the decision in Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra (supra).

6. 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: 01-Jul-2026 20:16:48 Signature Not Verified