[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sri Ajaya Kumar Pattanaik vs The State Of Odisha on 16 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No. 446 of 2026
1. Sri Ajaya Kumar Pattanaik
2. Smt. Runi Pattanaik .... Petitioners
Mr. Bhagaban Behera, Advocate
-versus-
1. The State of Odisha, represented
through the Commissioner -cum-
Secretary to Govt., Home Department,
Bhubaneswar
2. The Director General of Police
Odisha, Cuttack
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Bhubaneswar
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Bhubaneswar
5. The IIC, Chandaka Police Station
6. Sri Subhra Narayan Mohanty .... Opp. Parties
7. Mrs. Rasmita Pattanaik .... Proforma
Opp. Party
Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
None (for O.P. No.7)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 16.04.2026
(Through hybrid Mode)
01. 1. The CRLMP has been filed with the following prayer:-
"In the circumstances it is therefore prayed your
leadership to be graciously pleased to admit the
writ application, issue notice to the Opp parties
and after hearing of the parties more particularly
the Opp parties no 4 &5 to register the complaint
lodged under Annexure-1 series and took up
proper investigation and provide appropriate
protection to the petitioners by evicting the
OPno6 out of the residential house of plot
No.1640 as per law.
And pass any other order/orders deemed
just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
And for which act of your kindness the
petitioners shall as in duty bound every pray."
2. Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing
Counsel produces the instructions dated 09.04.2026 of the I.I.C.,
Chandaka Police Station where it is stated as follows:-
"With reference to the letter and subject cited
above, I have the honour to submit that on, I have
downloaded the scanned copies of the petition
filed by the petitioner & searched for the PS
records but found no such case has been
registered on the written report of the petitioner
on did. 09.04.2025.
However, on dtd. 09.04.2025 DCO, ASI
Sandeep Albert Kujur of Chandaka PS made GD
vide GD No. 06 dtd. 09.04.2025 mentioning that;
he had received one written report from the
petitioner regarding family dispute against his
son & daughter-in-law. As the matter reveals a
family/domestic dispute; before registration of
FIR, he enquired the matter to ascertain; if a
prima facie cognizable report exists or not.
After enquiry; on dtd. 13.04.2025 he had
submitted the enquiry report addressing IIC,
Chandaka PS vide DR No. 948/CDKPS, dtd.
13.04.2025; stating there in that; as the petitioner
has no son, he has adopted his nephew namely
Subhra Narayan Mohanty (son of petitioner's
elder brother Brahmananda Mohanty) as his son
while Subhra Narayan was 03 years old. But after
Subhra's marriage; petitioner & his wife felt that;
Subhra's behaviour towards them had suddenly
changed & he was not taking care of them
properly. From that day. misunderstanding
started between the petitioner & Subhra Narayan.
Subsequently, petitioner & his wife thought
that, change in Subhra Narayan's behaviour was
due to the influence of his wife. Day by day,
misunderstanding grew between both the parties
which resulted in submission this report at PS.
There was no prima facie established regarding
commission of cognizable offence by Subhra
Narayan Mohanty & his wife.
This is for favor of kind information."
3. From this, it is apparent that it is the opinion of the
enquiring officer that the Petitioners thought that there was
change in Subhra Narayan's behaviour due to the influence of his
wife, for which there is no prima facie established regarding
commission of cognizable offence.
4. Perused the complaint at Annexure-1, perusal of the same
reveals that serious allegations have been made against Opposite
Party No.6 who is the adopted son of the Petitioners.
5. As the Petitioners are senior citizen, they are entitled to
protection from the District Administration, in view of the
provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 and Rules made thereunder.
6. Hence, issue notice to the Opposite Parties No. 3, 4 and 5
only for the time being. Notice on their behalf is accepted by Mr.
Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel.
7. List this case on 04.05.2026 by which date counter
affidavit, if any, shall be filed by Opposite Parties No. 3, 4 and 5
regarding steps taken by them pursuant to the complaint at
Annexure-1.
8. It is also directed that in the meanwhile if Opposite Parties
No. 3, 4 and 5 think it is necessary, they shall extend protection
to the Petitioners to protect them from harassment by their son-
Opposite Party No.6.
9. None appears for the Opposite Party No.7 when the matter
is called although Mr. Susanta Kumar Nayak, learned counsel
has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Opposite Party No.7.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Sukanta
Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 16-Apr-2026 21:13:01
