[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Victim vs State Of Odisha on 18 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No. 272 of 2026
Victim .... Petitioner
Mr. Arupananda Goswamy, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Puri
3. IIC, Satyabadi Police Station,
Puri .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
18.03.2026
Order No.
02. (Through hybrid mode)
1. This CRLMP has been filed by the Petitioner with the
prayer for direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to register the FIR as
per the written report of the Petitioner dated 04.01.2026 under
Annexure-1.
2. Since the FIR was not registered, the Petitioner had sent a
representation to the S.P., Puri on 09.01.2026 through Speed Post
and since no action was taken on the basis of the said letter, the
Petitioner had appeared before the S.P. in his grievance cell on
20.01.2026 and on the said date, the S.P. had directed the IIC
Satyabadi Police Station to enquire and take legal action. Copy of
the direction has been annexed as Annexure-3 series to the CRLMP.
But, in spite of the said direction, since the IIC Satyabadi Police
Station did not take any legal action, the Petitioner had approached
this Court.
3. On 06.03.2026, the matter had been adjourned to enable the
learned Additional Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. Today
instructions dated 17.03.2026 of the IIC, Satyabadi Police Station is
produced where it is stated that Satyabadi PS Case No.128 dated
13.03.2026 under Sections 296 / 126(2) / 115(2) / 74 / 75(2) / 78(2) /
332(c) / 351(2) / 351(3) / 3(5) of the BNS has been registered
against one Bikram Pradhan and one Bipin Pradhan, both sons of
one Sridhar Pradhan of Batulipada under Satyabadi Police Station,
Puri.
4. Mr. Arupananda Goswamy, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that as the accused persons are influential persons,
they may continue to influence the IIC, Satyabadi Police Station
who did not register any FIR on the complaint of the Petitioner or on
the direction of the S.P. and case was registered only after
instructions were sought for by this Court in the CRLMP.
5. Perusal of the FIR reveals that Sub-Inspector, B. Sethi has
been directed to take up investigation in the case. Since the case has
been registered, normally, this Court would have disposed of the
CRLMP without issuing any direction, but in view of the
background of the case and the circumstances in which the case has
been registered, the S.P.,Puri is directed to depute a Senior Officer
of the rank of DSP / SDPO to supervise the investigation in this
case.
6. It is found that in view of the nature of allegation in this
case, the name of the Petitioner-informant should not have been
reflected in the CRLMP or in the Annexures or orders of this Court.
But in view of the negligence of the Officers manning the Filing
Counter and the Stamp Reporter, the name of the Petitioner has not
been redacted from the case records.
7. The name of the Petitioner is mentioned in the instructions
of the IIC for which, her name is redacted from the instructions in
Court today, before taking the instructions on record. The IO shall
ensure that her identity is protected during investigation of the case.
8. The Registry is, therefore, directed to ensure that the name
of the Petitioner is redacted from the physical and digital record as
well as the orders of this Court in compliance of Standing Order No.
03 of 2024.
9. The CRLMP is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
10. Office has pointed out that there is a typographical error in
order dated 06.03.2026 where the case number has been
inadvertently typed as 'CRLMP No.272 of 2025' in place of
'CRLMP No.272 of 2026'. The said error be corrected.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
RKS
