Orissa High Court
CRLMP/764/2026 of RANJAN KUMAR SAHU Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 25 June 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 764 of 2026 Ranjan Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. S. Srichandan, Advocate -versus- 1.State of Odisha 2.Superintendent of Police, Ganjam 3.IIC, Town Police Station, Berhampur, Ganjam …. Opp. Parties Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, Additional
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No. 764 of 2026
Ranjan Kumar Sahu
….
Petitioner
Mr. S. Srichandan, Advocate
-versus-
1.State of Odisha
2.Superintendent of Police, Ganjam
3.IIC, Town Police Station,
Berhampur, Ganjam
….
Opp. Parties
Mr. Amitabh Pradhan,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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.
01. 25.06.2026
(Through hybrid Mode)
1. This CRLMP has been filed for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other writ of like nature and direction or order to register the FIR dated 02.04.2026 under Annexure-1 series, submitted by the petitioner and to take appropriate legal action against the accused person named in the FIR and to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner.
2. The Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v/s Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others : (2016) 6 SCC 277, has held as follows : -
“2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.:(2008) 2 SCC 409, 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, 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 learned counsel for the Petitioner, perusing the CRLMP, Annexures and in view of the above decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao (supra), the CRLMP is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy which is available to her under Section 175 (3) of the BNSS.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Subhalaxmi
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 25-Jun-2026 19:27:59 Signature Not Verified