J. Ramakrishna Patra Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 665 of 2026

J. Ramakrishna Patra ….. Petitioner

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Naik, Advocate -versus-

1.State of Odisha 2.The Director General of Police, Odisha 3. The Superintendent of Police, Ganjam 4.The IIC, Chamakandi ….. Police Station, Chhatrapur, Opp. Parties Ganjam Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, Additional Standing Counsel

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 12.06.2026

¶7

(Through hybrid Mode)

¶8

This matter had been listed on 21.05.2026 and had been adjourned to 22.05.2026 as the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been threatened by the accused who

¶9

were his co villagers as he approached different authorities including the Police.

¶10

The allegations of the petitioner are that as he had not agreed to transfer a particular property recorded in the name of his mother and

¶11

Page 1 of 9

¶12

maternal aunt, he had been threatened and harassed in a meeting held in the village. He had also been warned that he would not be allowed to use common places in the village like the pond ,shops , etc and he and his family members were being heckled in the village streets for which they were in a state of terror. But the IIC of Chamakhandi Police Station had not registered any case on the complaint submitted by the petitioner on 10.03.2026 . On 21.03.2026 , he had been threatened by two villagers that if he did not withdraw the complaint, monetary fines would be imposed on him and he would not be allowed to live in the village. The workers who had been hired for construction work had also been threatened the same day by one of the accused. So he had submitted two complaints at the Chamakhandi Police Station on the same day. As no case was registered, he had sent representations to the S.P.Ganjam, Collector Ganjam and others by registered post on 23.03.2026. The Collector had directed the S.P. to conduct an enquiry. So the local police had warned the accused persons to refrain from their illegal activities and remove the social boycott, but the situation worsened after and they against threatened him and boycotted him, for which he is unable to cultivate his land and maintain his family.

¶13

Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, learned Additional Standing Counsel

¶14

Page 2 of 9

¶15

produced the instructions dated 21.5.2026 of the IIC Chamakhandi Police Station and submitted that the IIC has informed that initially on receipt of the complaint of the petitioner, attempt was made by the police to settle the matter amicably. But this was not successful as the petitioner did not co-operate. He submitted that if the petitioner goes to the police station with a fresh complaint, they will register a case, if cognizable offences are made out.

¶16

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated and although his complaint submitted earlier, disclosed cognisable offences under Section 127/308/351 of the BNS but the IIC Chamakhandi did not register any case against the accused persons but tried to settle the matter. He further submitted that if the matter could not be settled, a case should have been registered. Therefore there is no reason, why the petitioner should lodge a fresh complaint.

¶17

Section 173 and Section 175 of the BNSS which are relevant

¶18

for deciding this CRLMP is extracted below :-

¶19

“Section 173. Information in cognizable cases.

¶20

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication

¶21

Page 3 of 9

¶22

to an officer in charge of a police station, and if given-(i) orally, it shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it;(ii) by electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may by rules prescribe in this behalf:Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77, section 78, section 79 or section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:Provided further that-(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77, section 78, section 79 or section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;(b) the recording of such information shall be videographed;(c) the

¶23

Page 4 of 9

¶24

police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (6) of section 183 as soon as possible.

¶25

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim.

¶26

(3) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 175, on receipt of information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence,-(i) proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or(ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.

¶27

(4) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1), may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to

¶28

Page 5 of 9

¶29

that offence failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate.”

¶30

“Section 175. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.

¶31

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIV:

¶32

Provided that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the Superintendent of Police may require the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case.

¶33

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

¶34

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned.

¶35

(4) Any Magistrate empowered under section 210, may, upon receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course of the discharge of his official duties, order investigation, subject to-

¶36

Page 6 of 9

¶37

(a) receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him; and

¶38

(b) after consideration of the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged.”

¶39

It is apparent from a perusal of Section 173(3), that the IIC with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of DSP, considering the nature and gravity of the offence can conduct a preliminary enquiry within a period of fourteen days or proceed with the investigation when there exists a prima facie case.

¶40

In the present case, the IIC instead of registering a case has

¶41

tried to settle the matter. But when the matter could not be settled, he has not registered any case, for which the petitioner has approached different authorities and there after filed this CRLMP with the following prayer :

¶42

“Therefore, under the above facts and circumstances it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this CRLMP petition, issue notice to the Opp. Parties, calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause, & after hearing from both the parties, may direct the Opp. Parties to register the F.I.R., investigate the matter and arrest the accused persons involved in this heinous crime;

¶43

And further be pleased to direct the Opp. No4 to

¶44

Page 7 of 9

¶45

provide immediate police protection to the petitioner and his family;

¶46

And may pass such other order(s), direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the present facts & circumstances of the case.

¶47

And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶48

The Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v/s

¶49

Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others : (2016) 6 SCC 277 , has held as follows : -

¶50

“2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.:(2008) 2 SCC 409 , that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case (2008) 2 SCC 409, because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying

¶51

Page 8 of 9

¶52

for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.

¶53

3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.”

¶54

In view of the above discussion , it is expected that the IIC

¶55

Chamakhandi must have registered a case by now. In case no case has bene registered, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the

¶56

case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao (supra), the CRLMP is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy which is available to him under Section 175 (3) of the BNSS.

¶57

The CRLMP is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶58

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶59

Subhalaxmi

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Jun-2026 19:18:36

¶62

Page 9 of 9

J. Ramakrishna Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Ramakrishna Patra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhupal Mohakud Vs State of Odisha

Informant Vs State of Odisha

Victims Mother Vs State of Odisha

Bhagaban Moharana Vs State of Odisha

Afsana Bibi Vs Golam Rub Khan

Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack Vs Manoranjan Kumbhar, Iic, Bisra Police Station, Rourkela