Disposed

Anandini Dasi Heredia @ Anandini Dasi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Sept 2026CRLMP/1409/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a Criminal Leave to Maintain Petition filed by a petitioner residing in Bhubaneswar but foreign-born, seeking registration of an FIR against opposite party No. 4. The Court found the complaint was received at the relevant police station and directed the concerned officer to act upon it without delay. A signed order directs the police to record the case if cognizable off

What did the court decide?

Directed Opposite Party No.3 to immediately attend to the complaint and take appropriate legal action against Opposite Party No.4 if cognizable offenses are revealed.

Anandini Dasi Heredia @ Anandini Dasi Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMP No.1409 of 2026 (CNR No. ODHC010684072026)

¶3

Anandini Dasi Heredia @ …. Petitioner Anandini Dasi

¶4

Mr. S. Nayak, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. S. Panda, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER 11.09.2026

Order No.

01.

Heard Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State.

¶15

Instant CRLMP is filed by the petitioner for a direction to opposite party Nos.1 to 3 to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint as at Annexure-1 series dated 27^th December, 2024 on the grounds stated.

¶16

The allegation is against opposite party No.4 as made to reveal from the complaint i.e. Annexure-1 series. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that no action has been followed even after intimation to the higher official, namely, opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-2. The submission is that the petitioner is an outsider and belongs to Argentina but is a resident of Bhubaneswar. It is claimed that in spite of the allegations in the complaint as per Annexure-1 series, there is inaction of the P.S. concerned, hence, the CRLMP. Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State submits that the complaint i.e. Annexure-1 series is not addressed to opposite party No.3,

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

hence, as it appears, no action could be taken thereon. But, on perusal of the said complaint, this Court finds the seal and date of the concerned P.S. thereon. Considering the above facts and the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and since it is claimed that the petitioner presented the complaint at the P.S. which bears its seal and date, hence, the endorsement of having received, this Court is inclined to direct opposite party No.3 to immediately attend to the same and act upon and if in case any cognizable offences are alleged to have been committed by opposite party No.4, to take appropriate legal action in accordance with law without further delay.

¶19

Hence, it is ordered.

¶20

In the result, the CRLMP stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid for compliance by opposite party No.3 soon after receiving a copy of this order.

¶21

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules and in course of the day.

¶22

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶23

Alok

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 11-Sep-2026 14:51:13

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Anandini Dasi Heredia @ Anandini Dasi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandini Dasi Heredia @ Anandini Dasi 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