Sayed Sirajul Alli Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 727 of 2026

¶2

Sayed Sirajul Alli …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. Sushanta Kumar Joshi, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

1. State of Odisha, represented through the Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Bhubaneswar 2. Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate of Police, Bhubaneswar 3. Superintendent of Police, Cuttack Rural 4. Inspector-in-Charge, Kishore Nagar Police Station, Cuttack.

¶6

…. Opp. Parties

¶7

Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, Additional Government Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

23.06.2026

(Through Hybrid Mode)

¶14

1. This CRLMP has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this CRLMP petition, call for records and after hearing the parties, pleased to allow the CRLMP petition by directing the OP No.4 i.e. Inspector-in-Charge, Kishore Nagar Police Station, Cuttack to forthwith register the FIR on the basis of the written complaint dated 11.04.2026 submitted by the Petitioner disclosing commission of cognizable offences punishable under the

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and proceed with investigation strictly in accordance with law.

¶17

And direct the OP NO.3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Cuttack Rural to ensure fair, impartial and expeditious investigation into the allegations made by the Petitioner and to supervise the investigation in order to protect the interest of justice.

¶18

And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper;

¶19

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

¶20

The Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage : (2016) 6 SCC 277 , has observed as follows:-

¶21

“2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (2008) 2 SCC 409, AIR 2008 SC 907, 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 , AIR

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

2008 SC 907 because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.

¶24

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.”

¶25

After hearing Mr. Gajendranath Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner, perusing the averments in the CRLMP and Annexures and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra), the CRLMP is disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to avail the alternate remedy which is available to him under law.

¶26

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶27

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶28

Sukanta

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 24-Jun-2026 19:18:51

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Sayed Sirajul Alli v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Sirajul Alli 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

Makar Singh Vs State of Odisha

Manasi Jena Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Sumitra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Victim Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Das Vs State of Odisha