The Newton Higher Secondary vs State Of Odisha Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 353 Ori

Orissa High Court

The Newton Higher Secondary vs State Of Odisha Union Of India on 15 January, 2026

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          CRLMP No. 1707 of 2025
The Newton Higher Secondary            .....                                 Petitioner
School, Sundargarh
                                               Mr. Ashis Kumar Mishra, Advocate
                                    -versus-
1. State of Odisha Union of India
2. Superintendent of Police,
Sundargarh
3. The Inspector-in-Charge,
Sundargarh
4. Sri Sumit Kumar, Chairman,
Arohar Higher Secondary School,        .....                           Opposite Parties
Sundargarh
                                                     Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout, ASC
            CORAM:
                  HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

                                           ORDER

15.01.2026 Order No. (Through hybrid mode)

02.

1. This CRLMP has been filed praying for a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to immediately register the F.I.R. within a period of fifteen days on the report of the present Petitioner and to take action against the culprits who are involved in cybercrime and also to direct the Opposite Party No.3 to submit the report before the Hon'ble Court after registration of the F.I.R. regarding progress of the investigation.

2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that Opposite Party No.4 has made false allegation against the Petitioner with intention to damage the image of the School of the present Petitioner and take benefit out of it by diverting students of the institution of the present Petitioner to the Institution and for the said purpose he has published an article containing baseless allegation against the Petitioner.

3. The Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vrs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others reported in 2016 (6) SCC 277 has observed as follows:-

"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 d 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.

4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment¹ of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court."

4. The Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14932 of 2025 with the following prayer:-

"Under these circumstances, it is just and necessary in the interest of Justice that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a) direct the opposite party No.2 to consider the complaint petition of the present petitioner and to take appropriate step

against the O.P.No.3 within a specific period of time:

b) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to afford complete to the petitioner."

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court had directed that the Director of Higher Secondary Education- Opposite Party No. 2 in the said writ petition, to take a decision on representation of the Petitioner. It appears that pursuant to such direction on 08.09.2025, the Opposite Party No. 2 has disposed of the representation of the Petitioner stating that he has no authority to examine the genuineness of the digital documents submitted by the Petitioner and the allegation of the Petitioner does not come under his jurisdiction as the matter relates to cybercrime.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the writ petition and the decision in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (Supra), the CRLMP is disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to avail the alternate remedy available to him, if so advised.

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

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

puspa

Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA