Sainath Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Feb 2026CRLMP/49/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRLMP No. 49 of 2026; decided 02.02.2026; Savitri Ratho, J. Petition under Article 226 seeking police direction to recover vehicle seized by financer M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. for non-repayment of loan; vehicle registered in name of accused Lipsita Patra; Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No. 625 of 2023 under Sections 318(2) and 3(5) BNS against Lipsita Patra and Abhishek Tripathy; investigation pending; petitioner's CD Case No. 120/2025 dismissed; alternate remedy before jurisdictional Magistrate; CRLMP disposed of without any direction.

What did the court decide?

The Court is not satisfied that, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, any direction should be issued to the Police to recover the vehicle. ¶¶24

Sainath Das Vs State of Odisha — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMP No. 49 of 2026

¶3

Sainath Das

¶4

….. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Braja Mohan Sarangi, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

1. State of Odisha

¶8

2. Inspector-in-Charge, Sadar Police Station, Sadar, District-Cuttack

¶9

3. Superintendent of Police, Cuttack

¶10

….. Opposite Parties Mr. A.K. Apat, AGA

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶13

ORDER

¶14

02.02.2026

¶15

Order No. (Through hybrid mode)

¶16

¶17

The CRLMP has been filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 to recover the vehicle vide Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No. 625 of 2025 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶18

The allegations of the Petitioner is that he submitted a complaint against the Finance Company who had illegally seized his vehicle which was in possession of the Petitioner.

¶19

Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate produces the instructions dated 20.01.2026 of the IIC Sadar P.S., Cuttack UPD which are taken on record. It shall be scanned and incorporated in the digital record.

¶20

It appears that the accused Lipsita Patra had purchased the vehicle on finance taken from M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. and the Petitioner claims to have purchased the vehicle from her. The registration stands in her name. The vehicle was seized by the Financer as the loan was not repaid. The Petitioner had filed one as Consumer Dispute (CD) Case No. 120/2025 which has been

¶21

Page 1 of 2

¶22

dismissed.

¶23

Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No. 625 of 2023 has been registered against Lipsita Patra and her husband Abhishek Tripathy under Sections 318 (2) and 3 (5) of the BNS. The investigation is in progress.

¶24

I am not satisfied that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, any direction should be issued to the Police to recover the vehicle.

¶25

Mr. Braja Mohan Sarangi, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the availability of alternate remedy, he shall approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for redressal of his grievance.

¶26