Aswini Banchhor Vs State of Odisha

This CRLMP has been filed for issuing a direction to the Opposite Parties to register FIR dated 26.05.2026 and to take action against the accused persons by providing adequate protection to the life and property of the petitioner.

¶16

Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been staying in the land since 40 years. He submits that he has constructed his house on this land but the villagers are not allowing him and his family members to come out of their house. He has lodged FIR (Annexure-3) before the IIC, Muribahal Police Station on 26.05.2026 as there is apprehension to his life and

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

property and as he and his family members were detained in their house. When no action was taken by the local police he drew attention of the S.P. Balangir on 29.05.2026 to the inaction of the local police by submitting a representation (Annexure-4). He also submits that the petitioner has a right to construct his house wherever he wishes and the villagers do not have any right to obstruct him. After seventy five years of independence, liberty of an innocent villager has been curtailed by the accused and it is the duty of the police to provide protection to an individual from any threat to his life and property.

¶19

Perused the petition and Annexures. It is stated in paragraph 2 that a case has been registered against the accused persons on the basis of the FIR lodged by the petitioner on 25.05.2026 (Annexure-

¶20

1). But the case number or date of registration of the case has not been given. There is no endorsement on Annexure-3 or any document to indicate that it has been submitted in the Muribahal Police Station on 26.05.2026. The acknowledgement attached to Annexure-4 is that of the DSP, HRPC and not of the S.P., Balangir or his Office. Hence there is no material on record to establish compliance of Section 173(4) of the BNSS.

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

Section 173(4), Section 175 (3) of the BNSS and Section

¶23

156(3) of the Cr.P.C. which are relevant for deciding this CRLMP are extracted below.

¶24

“ 173. Information in cognizable cases.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(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.”

¶28

“ 156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognisable case.

¶29

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.”

¶30

The Supreme Court in the Case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe

¶31

v/s Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others : (2016) 6 SCC 277 ., has

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

held as follows :

¶34

“2 . This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : 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 [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR 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. 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.”

¶35

Page 4 of 5

¶36

I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner can construct his house wherever he wants. The petitioner can always make construction on his own land. A land not belonging to him, does not automatically become his, merely because he has occupied it for forty years.

¶37

In view of the aforesaid discussion and the decision of the

¶38

Supreme Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra), I am not inclined to entertain this CRLMP. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternate remedy which is available to him under law after complying with Section 173 (4) of the BNSS.

¶39