Dillip Kumar Moharana Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMP No. 24 of 2026

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

1.	Dillip Kumar Moharana
2.	Kishore Chandra Moharana
3.	Bijay Kumar Moharana
4.	Ajay Kumar Moharana
5.	Jhunu Moharana @ Juna
	Moharana
6.	Sasmita Moharana …. Petitioners
	-versus-
1.	State of Odisha, represented
	through the Secretary to
	Government, Home
	Department, Bhubaneswar
2.	Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar
3.	Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar
4.	Inspector-in-Charge, Bharatpur Police Station, Bhubaneswar …. Opposite Parties
Advoc	ates appear in this case:
For Pe	titioner : Mr. Laxmikanta Behera, Advocate
For Op	posite Parties : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel
CORA	M:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶6

Page 1 of 6

¶7

J U D G M E N T

¶8

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

Dates of hearing and Judgment : 05.02.2026

¶10

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶11

Savitri Ratho, J. It is the second journey with the same grievance that the Police is not completing the investigation in Bharatpur P.S. Case No. 330 of 2021 pursuant to the direction of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar dated 03.09.2021 in 1CC Case No.3324 of 2021.

¶12

It appears that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the delay in investigation of the case the Petitioner had earlier approached this

¶13

Court in CRLMP No.1343 of 2023. By order dated 13.02.2024, this Court had directed as follows:

¶14

“3. Learned counsel for the State has placed the report submitted by the IIC., Bharatpur Police Station wherein it reveals that the investigation is in progress. In view of the above submission, it is directed that the IIC., Bharatpur Police Station to monitor the investigation and to proceed in accordance with law with utmost promptitude and submit the Final Form/Final Report, if any, in connection with the case.”

¶15

The case was registered in the year 2021 and about four years have elapsed since then. Almost two years have elapsed since

¶16

CRLMP No.24 of 2026

¶17

Page 2 of 6

¶18

direction of this Court in CRLMP No.1343 of 2023. In spite of the said direction, investigation has not been completed.

¶19

Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel has produced the instructions dated 04.02.2026 of the IIC, Bharatpur Police Station, who apart from describing the steps taken for investigation has submitted that both the parties have approached the civil Court of law and as such, the allegation leads to civil in nature and that the investigation is under progress. It is also stated in the instruction that the case was supervised by the then IIC, Deepak Kumar Khandayat Ray and the case was tested by Tapas Chandra Pradhan, ACP-III, Bhubaneswar UPD and the investigation of the case is under progress.

¶20

Timely completion of investigation is an integral aspect of speedy trial. It is true that rigid timeliness cannot be prescribed for completing an investigation as that may affect the quality of investigation. The manner and result of the investigation is however the prerogative of the Investigating Authority.

¶21

Delay in investigation apart from causing harassment and embarrassment to the accused is like a Damocles Sword hanging indefinitely over his head. It also results in loss of confidence of the informant in the investigating agency. Delay

¶22

CRLMP No.24 of 2026

¶23

Page 3 of 6

¶24

sometimes bars the access or remedy of the complainant to alternative remedy.

¶25

In a recent decision in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga

¶26

Chongthu v. State of Bihar: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511 , the Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶27

“21. Before parting with this matter, we deem it fit to issue the following directions:

¶28

(i) xxx xxx xxx

¶29

(ii) Reasons are indispensable to the proper functioning of the machinery of criminal law. They form the bedrock of fairness, transparency, and accountability in the justice system. If the Court finds or the accused alleges (obviously with proof and reason to substantiate the allegation) that there is a large gap between the first information report and the culminating chargesheet, it is bound to seek an explanation from the investigating agency and satisfy itself to the propriety of the explanation so furnished.

¶30

The direction above does not come based on this case alone. This Court has noticed on many unfortunate occasions that there is massive delay in filing chargesheet/taking cognizance etc. This Court has time and again, in its pronouncements underscored the necessity of speedy investigation and trial as being important for the accused, victim and the society.

¶31

CRLMP No.24 of 2026

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

However, for a variety of reasons there is still a lag in the translation of this recognition into a reality.

¶34

(iii) While it is well acknowledged and recognised that the process of investigation has many moving parts and is therefore impractical to have strict timelines in place, at the same time, the discussion made in the earlier part of this judgment, clearly establishes that investigations cannot continue endlessly. The accused is not out of place to expect, after a certain point in time, certainty- about the charges against him, giving him ample time to preparing plead his defence. If investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that appears to be unduly long, that too without adequate justification, such as in this case, the accused or the complainant both, shall be at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC , seeking an update on the investigation or, if the doors of the High Court have been knocked by the accused, quashing. It is clarified that delay in completion of investigation will only function as one of the grounds, and the Court, if in its wisdom, decides to entertain this application, other grounds will also have to be considered.”

¶35

(emphasis supplied)

¶36