Orissa High Court
CRLMP/705/2026 of INFORMANT Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 30 June 2026
of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.705 of 2026 Informant …. Petitioner Ms. S. Rath, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak 3. The IIC, Dhamnagar Police Station 4. Rajesh Kumar Jena …. Opp. Parties Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, Additional
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No.705 of 2026
Informant
….
Petitioner
Ms. S. Rath, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha
2. Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak
3. The IIC, Dhamnagar Police Station
4. Rajesh Kumar Jena
….
Opp. Parties
Mr. Amitabh Pradhan,
Additional Standing Counsel
Mr. S. J. Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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
Order No.
03. 30.06.2026
(Through hybrid Mode)
1. Office has pointed out that the adjournment date in order dated 22.06.2026 has been typed as “25.06.25026” in place of “25.06.2026”. The said error be corrected.
2. This CRLMP has been filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 to register FIR on the basis of complaint of the Petitioner and conduct fair, prompt and effective investigation and rescue the minor daughter of the Petitioner.
3. Pursuant to order dated 22.06.2026, affidavit dated 24.06.2026 of the IIC, Dhamnagar Police Station has been e- filed on 24.06.2026.
4. In spite of the direction in paragraph-4 of the order dated 22.06.2026, which is extracted below: “4. In view of such submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, list this matter on 25.06.2026 to enable the IIC, Dhamnagar P.S. to file an affidavit giving details on which date he had called up the Petitioner on his Mobile No.9178653188 to produce original written report along with photographs and aadhar card of victims along with the document to show that the victim was a major on 05.05.2026.” there is no averment in the affidavit regarding the date on which the IIC had called the petitioner on his mobile number. But in paragraph-3 of the affidavit it is stated as follows: “That on 07.05.2026 on the written report of the petitioner has been received (T) dak regarding the alleged kidnapping or missing of the minor daughter of the petitioner. After seeing the FIR, as it was a xerox report so I depute a staff to the petitioner and requested to produce original written report along with photograph and Aadhar card of the victim as the case relates to man missing. But on being contacted, the petitioner fails to produce the photograph & Aadhar card and did not co-operate with us. However, the petitioner submitted the original written report on 23.06.2026 and after getting the written report, Dhmnagar P.S Case No. 268 dated 23.06.2026 U/s- 137(2)/87 BNS has been registered.”
5. From this it is apparent that the instructions dated 20.06.2026 of the IIC, Dhamnagar Police Station that even though he contacted the Petitioner on his mobile number, but he did not appear in the Police Station and did not co-operate, which had been sent in this CRLMP are not correct. He has also not explained in what circumstances such incorrect information was given for being produced before this Court. The relevant portion of the instructions are extracted below:- “In inviting a reference to the above CRLMP No- 705/2026 and subject to the compliance, I am to submit that on 07.05.2026 one written report received (T) dak regarding the alleged kidnapping or missing of the minor daughter of the petitioner. After seeing that it is Xerox report, then I contacted the petitioner vide his mobile number 9178653188 for produce original written report along with photo graphs and aadhar card of victims. But the petitioner neither appeared at PS nor co-operate us.”
6. It is also apparent that the name of the minor victim is mentioned in the instructions dated 20.06.2026, her name has not been redacted from the FIR annexed to the affidavit dated 24.06.2026. This is in violation of the directions of the Supreme Court in various decisions.
7. As Dhamnagar PS Case No. 268 dated 2026 has already been registered on 23.06.2026, the CRLMP is disposed of.
8. But in view of the above discussion, the Registry is directed to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against Shri Subrajit Das, the IIC of Dhamnagar Police Station for submitting incorrect information to this Court and trying to mislead this Court and for revealing the name of the victim in instruction dated 20.06.2026 and not redacting her name from the FIR which has been annexed to the affidavit dated 24.06.2026. The CONTC be listed before the assigned Bench in the week commencing 13.07.2026. Later
9. Mr. S. J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel draws attention of the Court to the additional affidavit which has been e-filed by the Opposite Party No.3 yesterday i.e. on 29.06.2026, where it has been stated at paragraph-4 that the police contacted the petitioner through the owner of the sweet stall on 10.05.2026 where he was working. It is also stated that as per the 10th certificate of the daughter, the victim is a major on 05.05.2026 as the date of birth is 27.04.2008.
10. The contents of paragraph-4 of the additional affidavit are not in consonance with the instruction dated 20.06.2026 that the IIC contacted the Petitioner on his mobile number. Hence, the direction to register the suo motu CONTC stands unaltered.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Subhalaxmi
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 30-Jun-2026 19:50:04 Signature Not Verified