[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Informant vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 6 January, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.5175 of 2025
Informant ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Sisira Panigrahi
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Manas Kumar Jena Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
06.01.2026
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-Informant as well as
learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the
prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS, the Petitioner seeks to
invoke the inherent power of this Court for a direction to carry out a
denovo investigation to prevent miscarriage of justice.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
initially an FIR was lodged at the instance of the Informant-
Petitioner at Nandipada P.S. which was registered as FIR No.106
dated 05.03.2024 for alleged commission of offence punishable
under Section 363 of IPC. As per the FIR allegation, the daughter of
the present Petitioner was kidnapped by the accused persons and she
was kept in captivity and subjected to sexual harassment. He further
contended that the victim girl was rescued by the Police and in the
meantime after conclusion of the investigation a final charge-sheet
has been filed for commission of offence punishable under Section
363 of IPC. He further submitted that the victim girl was a minor at
the time of the incident, which is evident from her educational
certificate filed along with the present application. In the aforesaid
content, learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed for denovo
investigation of the entire allegation made by the Informant.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand referred to the
final form at Annexure-3 to the application. He further contended
that the final form has been submitted by the I.O. after recording the
statement of the victim. It was specifically submitted by the learned
counsel for the State that the victim girl did not support the case of
the prosecution. As per the statement of the victim, the victim girl
was chastised by her parents, as a result of which, she fled away to
her uncle's house in Chennai, Tamil Nadu without intimating her
parents and uncle's family. The final form further reveals that she
was rescued from Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, the final form
has been submitted with a recommendation to treat the case as a
mistake of fact under Section 363 of IPC.
6. In reply to the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for
the State, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that although a
protest petition has been filed before the learned Magistrate,
however, the same has not been dealt with for a long time. It was
also contended that the protest petition filed at the instance of the
Informant is still pending for consideration. Being aggrieved by such
inaction on the part of the learned Magistrate, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present application.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts
as well as the subsequent development, further on a close scrutiny of
the final form at Annexure-3, this Court is of the prima facie view
that the I.O. after investigation has come to a conclusion that the
case is a mistake of fact and accordingly he has submitted the final
form No.275 dated 07.12.2024 with a recommendation to return the
case as a mistake of fact under Section 363 of IPC. It is not disputed
that the law provides remedy to the Informant to file a protest
petition in the event a final form has been submitted giving a clean
chit to the accused. In the instant case as per the submission made by
the learned counsel for the Informant-Petitioner a protest petition has
already been filed since February, 2025. However, the same has not
been dealt with in accordance with law. Taking into consideration
the aforesaid grievance of the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper
to dispose of the present application by directing the learned
J.M.F.C., Hatadihi to consider the protest petition of the Informant-
Petitioner strictly in accordance with law and pass necessary orders
thereon. While considering the application of the Petitioner, the
learned trial Court shall also take into consideration the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devendra Nath Singh v. State of
Bihar & Ors. decided in SLP (Crl.) No.9609 of 2022 disposed of
vide judgment dated 12.10.2022
8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC
application stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
