IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.7848 of 2014 CNR No. ODHC010046552014 Prakash Kumar Rath …. Petitioner Mr. Swastik Sahoo, proxy counsel on behalf of Mr. Sahasranshu Sourav, Advocate and Mr. Tarini Prasad Tripathy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, Addl. Govt. Advocate (for opposite party nos.1 to 4) Mr. Karunakar Das, Advocate for opposite party no.5 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 27.08.2026 6. 1. Based on complaint received from M.L.A., Kakatpur, Odisha Human Rights Commission registered OHRC Case No.3314/2012 and proceeded to examine the police personnel and Home Guards. It is revealed from the order dated 6th March, 2013 of the learned Member, Odisha Human Rights Commission, Bhubaneswar that on going through the complaint, reports and statements, it was led to believe that there was violation of human rights of Giridhari Lenka, scrap dealer whose shop and godown was inspected by the police. It emerges from said order of learned Human Rights Commission that the Inspector, the petitioner herein, stated to have received an anonymous call which necessitated inspection of stolen scrap materials alleged to have been kept in the shop of the opposite party no.5 and since the Inspector could not divulge the telephone number from which he received the information to trigger undertaking search operation of the shop premises of the opposite party no.5, the Human Rights Commission has passed the following order: “In view of the above, the Commission is inclined to hold that Inspector Prakash Kumar Rath intentionally planned a raid of the scrap godown of Giridhari Lenka in order to harass him with ulterior motive. As the human rights of the victim Giridhari Lenka stand violated, the Commission hereby awards compensation of Rs.60,000/- (sixty thousand rupees) in favour of victim Giridhari Lenka under section 18(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department with a request to arrange payment of the above compensation amount in favour of the victim Giridhari Lenka and report compliance to the Commission in four weeks’ time. He be also -requested to take action, as deemed proper, against Inspector Prakash Kumar Rath.” 2. Challenging the order dated 6th March, 2013 of the Member, Odisha Human Rights Commission, Bhuabaneswar in OHRC Case No.3314/2012, the petitioner approached this Court in the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Swastik Sahoo, learned proxy counsel on behalf of Mr. Sahasranshu Sourav, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on receiving allegation from the concerned MLA, who approached the State Human Right Commission, the petitioner cooperated with the proceeding before the said Commission. However, it is explained that on 22.10.2012 while performing night patrolling, the petitioner received an information from an anonymous source that the opposite party no.5 was in possession of stolen plastic pipes in his shop in Village: Dalimbagoradi and on receiving such information he along with the patrolling staff conducted the raid and found five used engines (three scooter engines, one motorcycle engine and one auto-rickshaw engine). The shop owner could not produce the papers in respect of the materials for which the materials were seized right at the spot and brought to the police station along with the opposite party no.5, who was detained in the police station with a direction to his brother to produce the original RC books in support of the seized engines. On the next day, the brother appeared at the police station and produced the original RC books in respect of four of the engines but could not produce the documents with regard to fifth engine, but he assured to produce the same after collecting from the owner. Thereafter, the petitioner released the opposite party no.5 on PR bond. It is also submitted that based on the complaint lodged before the Human Rights Commission by a local MLA, the opposite party no.5 was directed to be paid compensation. 4. It is submitted by Sri Karunakar Das, learned advocate for the opposite party no.5 that the opposite party no.5 was never examined by the Commission. With all fairness, in course of hearing, it is brought to the notice by Sri Karunakar Das, learned advocate that an affidavit being sworn by the opposite party no.5 has been filed before this Court on 7th August, 2026. 5. Perusal of said affidavit of the opposite party no.5 reveals following facts: “4. That, it is respectfully and humbly submitted that the allegations made by the Complainant Rabi Mallick as regards to demand of pooja chanda is completely false and denied by me. On suspicion of stolen two-wheeler engines being kept by me being a scrap dealer, the Petitioner seized the stolen engines as per seizure list prepared and took me for questioning, as I was unable to produce documents in respect to the engines. On the next date, on being satisfied with the verification of documents pertaining to the engines, produced by my brother namely Jagannath Lenka, I was released on PR bond after being detained only for few hours. 5. That, it is respectfully and humbly submitted that the entire case as set up by the Complainant Rabi Mallick, is far from the truth and it appears that to settle personal scores with the Petitioner, vindictively the complaint was made to the Commission using me as a scapegoat. 6. That, although I was examined by Prabhakar Swain, Inspector of Police, attached to the Commission, my statement was distorted and completely incorrect facts of demand of illegal gratification and torture by the Petitioner was reflected therein. Without seeing the contents of the statement recorded by the Inspector, I was made to sign the same. There is absolutely no truth to the contents of my statements purported to have been given to the inspector. As a matter of fact, I nor any of my family members were examined by the Commission and none of our statements were recorded before it. Purely on the basis of the enquiry conducted by Prabhakar Swain, Inspector of Police attached to the Commission, the Commission has proceeded to record the guilt of the Petitioner. 7. That, the Petitioner at no point of time has subjected me to any kind of violation affecting my human rights and has been made a victim of some oblique motive on the part of the Complainant using me as a pawn.” 6. It is discernible that the opposite party no.5 has come forward to say that he was being projected to complain against the petitioner; rather the entire game before the learned Human Rights Commission was hatched by the local M.L.A. The learned Commission should have been more careful in dealing with such cases which was sought to be ventilated on behalf of the opposite party no.5. It is significant to notice that the counsel for the opposite party no.5, Mr. Karunakar Das, learned Advocate candidly stated that said victim was never been examined by the Human Rights Commission. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the opposite party no.5, this Court finds no justification to sustain the order dated 6th March, 2013 passed by the learned Member, Odisha Human Rights Commission, Bhuabaneswar in OHRC Case No.3314/2012 (Annexure-1) and hence, the said order is hereby set aside. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition, being allowed, stands disposed of. (M.S. Raman) Judge Aswini Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary in-charge) CUTTACK Signature Not Verified