CRLMP/726/2026 of CHHABI MOHANTY Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 23 June 2026

ORDER

Order No. 23.06.2026

(Through Hybrid Mode)

01.

1. This CRLMP has been filed with the following prayer:- “In the above facts and circumstances, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to register the F.I.R dated 20.5.2026 and take action against the Opp. party No. 3 (vide Annexure-1) lodged by the Petitioners and your

Lordship may direct Opp. Party No. 3 to vacate the land occupied by the Opp. Party No. 4 to 8 of the petitioners land for the interest of justice;

Pass any other writ/writs and order

(s) /direction(s) that your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice, equity and good conscience;

And for which act of kindness, the Petitioners 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. C. Khatua, learned counsel for the Petitioners, perusing the averments in the CRLMP and Annexure-1 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 Petitioners to avail the alternate remedy which is available to them under law.

4. 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: 24-Jun-2026 11:43:11 Signature Not Verified