Disposed

Sumitra Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 May 2024WPCRL/95/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Odisha disposed of a writ petition filed by a mother whose daughter went missing. The Court noted the police produced the required original marriage certificate after earlier directions and satisfied itself with the action taken.

What did the court decide?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition noting that sufficient action was taken by the police to produce the marriage certificate.

Sumitra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WPCRL No.95 of 2023

¶3

Sumitra Sahoo

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

Represented by Adv.Mr. G.K. Rath, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

..... Opposite Parties

¶9

Represented by Adv.Mrs. Suman Pattanayak, AGA

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

¶12

AND

¶13

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER

20.05.2024

Order No.

11. 1. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner.

¶18

He submits, his client is the mother. Her daughter went missing on 8^th April, 2023. Complaint was lodged next day. Suspicion is that one Babuli Behera kidnapped her. There has been no rescue.

¶19

2. We on 13^th May, 2024 had made direction as in paragraph-2

¶20

in order made that day. Said paragraph is reproduced below.

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

“2. It appears from the instruction that Investigating Officer (IO) has seized photocopy of marriage certificate dated 7^th March, 2024, in respect of marriage between opposite party no.5 and Gaytri Sahoo, the missing girl. Considering it is a copy certificate and likely to be true copy of the original, we require the police to produce the original or rescue the girl.”

¶23

3. Mrs. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and hands up, inter alia, original marriage certificate dated 17^th March, 2024 in respect of marriage between Babuli Behera aged about 26 years and Gayatri Sahoo aged about 18 years. We make photocopy of the original. The photocopy is endorsed by Court Master to have been made from the original, in Court and handed over to Mr. Rath.

¶24

4. We are satisfied with action taken by the police. Mr. Rath submits, the police have done so much. They be directed to arrange a meeting between his client and her daughter. Petitioner is at liberty to approach concerned P.S. and produce website copy of our

¶25

order. We are sure the P.S. will do what it can.

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

5. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶29

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

¶30

GS/Jyostna

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-May-2024 12:06:32

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Sumitra Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bipin Bihari Behera Vs State of Odisha

B G R Mining and Infra Ltd. Vs Govt. of India

Nilima Naik Vs Sudhansu Sekhar Naik

Nilu Baral Vs State of Odisha

Bijay Kumar Barik Vs State of Odisha

U. Raghunath Patra Vs Secy., H and Ud, Development Dept.