Informant v. State of Odisha
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 3(5), 74, 115(2), 126(2), 324(2)
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. The CRLMP is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. subhalaxmi (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 04-May-2026 20:39:06
Judgment
Petitioner Mr. Arijeet Mishra, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 04.05.2026 (Through hybrid Mode) Order No. 01.
This CRLMP has been filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 for a denovo investigation in connection with Bharatpur PS Case No. 296 of 2025.
Perusal of the averments in the CRLMP reveal that Bharatpur PS Case No. 296 of 2025 was registered on 29.05.2025 against un- known accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 126(2)/115(2)/324(2)/74/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of typographical the word “unknown persons” has been mentioned paragraph-3 as perusal of the FIR which is at Annexure-1 would reveal that the case has been registered against 1)Rajkishore Pattnaik, 2)brother-in-law of Rajkishore Pattnaik, 3)nephews of Rajkishore Pattnaik along with the others.
The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in CRLMP No. 1046 of 2025 aggrieved by the inaction of the police on the FIR submitted by the petitioner and by order dated 22.09.2025, this Court had directed for completion of the investigation within one month. Thereafter, charge sheet dated 30.11.2025 has been submitted against 3 persons.
It is the grievance of the petitioner that investigation has not been conducted properly so as to connect the accused persons with the above offences.
If the petitioner is aggrieved by the investigation or the charge sheet, alternative remedy is available to challenge it. I am therefore not inclined to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue any direction to the police for conducting denovo investigation.
The CRLMP is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. subhalaxmi (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 04-May-2026 20:39:06
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.