p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 1697 of 2025 Rekhalata Jena ….. Petitioner Mr. Karunakar Gaya, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Director General of Police, Odisha, Cuttack 3. The Superintendent of Police, Kendrapara 4. The Inspector-in-Charge, Rajnagar Police Station, Kendrapara ….. Opposite Parties Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 29.01.2026 Order No. 02. (Through hybrid mode) 1. This CRLMP has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that let this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this petition, issue Rule NISI, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why this petition shall not be allowed and as to why the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner shall not be registered against the accused persons, And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to allow this petition and issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party No.3 and 4 to register the F.I.R for the interest of justice.” p. 2 puspa 2. Mr. R.B. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the instructions have not been received. 3. Perusal of the petition reveals that there is no proof that the FIR, in question was submitted at the Rajnagar Police Station on 05.11.2025, however, the Speed Post receipt revealed that on 15.11.2025, documents have been sent to the IIC, Rajnagar Police Station and the S.P., Kendrapara. 4. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the averments in the petition, it appears that the Petitioner is in forcible occupation of the land which belongs to the accused persons and they had objected for construction of Indira Awas house on the said land. 5. In view of the nature of allegations and the annexures annexed to the CRLMP, I do not consider this a fit case to exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution and issue any direction to the Opposite Parties. 6. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to avail alternate remedy which is available to her under law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe vrs. Hemanta Yashwant Dhage reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277, if she is so advised. 7. With the above observation, the CRLMP is disposed of. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (Savitri Ratho) Judge