Disposed¶17

Baban Chandra Samantaray v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Oct 2025CRLMP/1067/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRLMP No.1067 of 2025; Baban Chandra Samantaray v. State of Odisha and others; Justice Chittaranjan Dash; order dated 09.10.2025; direction to Opposite Party No.3 to investigate; Tantiapal Marine P.S. Case No.92 of 2025 dated 31.07.2025; Section 180 BNSS statements; Section 126 BNSS PR and counter PR; Section 35(3) BNSS notice to accused Bighneswar Nayak; matter primarily a civil dispute; investigation to be completed within stipulated period; CRLMP disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction that the investigating agency shall make every endeavor to ensure the investigation is completed within a stipulated period; no other direction issued. ¶17

Baban Chandra Samantaray Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction that the investigating agency shall make every endeavor to ensure the investigation is completed within a stipulated period; no other direction issued.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct Opposite Party No.3 to investigate into the matter and take action as required under law. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The Court observed that, as it appears from the narration made in the complaint, the matter primarily relates to a civil dispute.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Since the FIR had been registered, notice under Section 35(3) BNSS issued to the accused, and PR and counter PR issued under Section 126 BNSS, no further direction was required save and except that the investigating agency shall make every endeavor to ensure that the investigation is completed within a stipulated period.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — CRLMP No.1067 of 2025 (Baban Chandra Samantaray v. State of Odisha and others), order dated 09.10.2025 by Justice Chittaranjan Dash. The Petitioner sought a direction to Opposite Party No.3 to investigate and act under law concerning FIR Tantiapal Marine P.S. Case No.92 of 2025 dated 31.07.2025, complaining that despite registration the investigating agency had not made substantial progress in apprehending the culprits, leaving him unable to cultivate his land. The State placed the IIC's written instruction: the I.O. visited the spot, examined the complaint and witnesses and recorded statements under Section 180 BNSS; a PR and counter PR were issued under Section 126 BNSS against both groups amid a landed-property dispute; and notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was issued to accused Bighneswar Nayak s/o Dhaneswar Nayak, the matter remaining under investigation. Observing that the matter primarily relates to a civil dispute, the Court held that registration of the FIR, issuance of the notice and the preventive orders sufficed, requiring no further direction except that the investigating agency make every endeavor to complete the investigation within a stipulated period. The CRLMP stood disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMP No.1067 of 2025

¶3

Baban Chandra Samantaray …. Petitioner Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. State of Odisha and others Opp. Parties Mr. S.J. Mohanty, Addl. P.P.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No.

09.10.2025

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.

¶13

By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks intervention of this Court for a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to investigate into the matter and to take action as required under law.

¶14

Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the case record it reveals that pursuant to the report lodged by the Petitioner the FIR has been registered in connection with Tantiapal Marine P.S. Case No.92 of 2025 dated 31.07.2025. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that despite registration of the FIR the investigating agency has not made substantial progress in the investigation apprehending the culprits thereby the Petitioner is not in a position to cultivate his land.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has placed the written instruction of the IIC, Tantiapal Marine P.S. It discloses from the instructions that the I.O. visited the spot and examined the complaint and other witnesses, recorded their statement under Section 180 BNSS. Due to the dispute regarding landed property there is dissention between two groups. Hence, in order to keep peace and tranquility the PR and counter PR has been issued under Section 126 BNSS against both the parties. As per the guideline, the I.O. issued notice under Section 35(3) BNSS to the accused persons, namely, Bighneswar Nayak son of Dhaneswar Nayak and the matter is under investigation.

¶16

Having heard to the learned counsel for the parties, as it appears from the narration made in the complaint primarily the matter relates to Civil Dispute.

¶17

Be that as it may, since the matter has already been taken cognizance of by registering the FIR and the investigating agency has already proceeded by issuing notice under Section 35(3) BNSS and further in order to maintain peace and tranquility the PR and counter PR has been issued, no further direction is required to be passed save and except that the investigating agency shall make every endeavor to ensure that the investigation should be completed within a stipulated period. The CRLMP stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

(Chittaranjan Dash)

¶20

Digitally Signed Signed by: KRUSHNA CHANDRA BISOI Judge Reason: Authentication KC Bisoi Location: orissa high court Date: 10-Oct-2025 15:51:43

¶21

Page 2 of 2

Baban Chandra Samantaray v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Chandra Samantaray v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajaya Digal Vs State of Odisha

Kiran Digal Vs State of Odisha

Ruhim Digal Vs State of Odisha

Sumanta Pradhan Vs Rasmita Mishra @Pradhan

Sarat Ghadei Vs State of Odisha

Kunti Patra Vs State of Odisha