p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4738 of 2025 Prasanna Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajat Kumar Panda, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 03. ORDER 23.03.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the F.I.R. apprehended to be lodged against him for the commission of offences under Sections 118(2), 351(2), 296 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 & 5 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 vide Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.0154 (GRP, Cuttack) dated 07.09.2025. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, pursuant to the earlier order of this Court learned counsel for the State, on instruction, submits that name of the Petitioner has not been reflected in the F.I.R and he has preferred this CRLMC only on apprehension. Relevant portion of the said instruction Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:03:07 Signature Not Verified p. 2 received from the I.I.C, GRPS, Bhubaneswar is extracted hereinbelow:- “The IO submitted point wise full compliance report to the SRP, Cuttack(T) SDRPO KUR for obtaining order to submit FF as FRT no clue with a request to delete the name of P.K. Nayak of RPF post Bhubaneswar from the charges and received the order vide No.34327/DCRB Date 29.12.2025 to submit FF as FRT no clue in this case. Accordingly the IO submitted FF as FRT no clue U/s. 118(2)/351(2)/296/3(5) BNS/Sec.3/5 of RPWD Act against the unknown accused vide Bhubaneswar GRPS FF No.276 Date 31.12.2025 for kind acceptance with a prayer to re-open the case if any clue obtains in future.” 5. Considering the above, looking to the instruction received from the I.I.C, GRPS, Bhubaneswar and since the name of the Petitioner has not been reflected in the F.I.R noted hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the prayer made in this CRLMC is premature. This Court, therefore, declines to entertain the prayer made in this CRLMC. 6. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of as infructuous. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant