IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No.2795 of 2025 Bijay Kumar Nanda …. Petitioner Mr. Kshirod Kumar Rout, Advocate -versus- Gokul Ranjan Dash …. Opp. Party Mr. S. B. Panda, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 10.07.2026 09. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court alleging deliberate suppression and misrepresentation by the investigating agency in relation to Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.87 of 2023, arising out of CRLMP No.2407 of 2023, which was disposed of on 07.02.2024 on the basis of a statement made before this Court that the matter had been thoroughly investigated and that a Final Report had already been submitted. 3. Mr. Ankit Berma, Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur, is present through virtual mode. With reference to the order dated 30.06.2026 passed by this Court, he submits that the statement of the complainant was recorded on the very day the FIR was registered and that every possible step has been taken to ensure a fair and proper investigation into the matter. Page 2 of 8 4. Mr. Rout, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that from the record it is clear that the ground on which the police delayed the whole process to conclude the investigation per se is false in as much as the fact that the authority was waiting for the permission of Crime Branch has not been obtained whereas the investigation has been concluded. There is delay of about four years in matters of such gravity. This is absolutely an act that would erode the confidence in the police. According to Mr. Rout perusal of the entire process of investigation would go to show that the authorities have scant regard for the law of the land. 5. Mr. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that every possible step has been taken by the investigating agency. It is submitted that the statement of the complainant was recorded on the very day the FIR was registered and that the investigation has ultimately been completed. It is further contended that there was no deliberate intention on the part of the officers concerned to mislead the Court. 6. At the outset, this Court records its deep anguish at the manner in which the complaint of the Petitioner has been dealt with by the investigating machinery. The chronology emerging from the record presents a disturbing picture of official apathy, lack of accountability and complete disregard for the rule of law. 7. The Petitioner asserts that he had approached the police authorities as early as 2020 alleging commission of cognizable offences relating to forged mutation proceedings and consequential transfers of immovable property. Despite such complaint, no FIR came to be registered. It was only after intervention at higher levels p. 3 and after a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Crime Branch found the allegations prima facie worthy of examination that Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.87 of 2023 eventually came to be registered on 31.01.2023. Thus, the first and most glaring feature of the case is the unexplained delay in setting the criminal law in motion. The record does not disclose any satisfactory justification as to why allegations serious enough to warrant eventual registration of offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC remained unattended for years together. Thereafter, when the Petitioner approached this Court in CRLMP No.2407 of 2023 complaining of absence of visible progress in investigation, this Court on 04.01.2024 called upon the State to obtain instructions regarding the status of investigation. Pursuant thereto, on 07.02.2024, a report was placed before this Court stating unequivocally that the matter had been thoroughly investigated and that a Final Report had already been submitted showing insufficiency of evidence against the accused persons. Acting upon such representation, the writ petition was disposed of. 8. The affidavit of the then Inspector-in-Charge reveals that on 14.12.2023, Shri J.K. Mohapatra, OPS-I, Additional Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur, issued a Supervision Note opining that the case was fit to be returned as Final Report for insufficiency of evidence under Sections 120-B/467/468/471/423/34 IPC. Once such supervisory opinion had been recorded, the investigating agency was expected to carry the matter to its logical conclusion with reasonable promptitude. Page 4 of 8 What followed, however, was an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Instead of proceeding expeditiously, the matter appears to have remained entangled in administrative indecision. While this Court was informed on 07.02.2024 that the matter had been thoroughly investigated and that the Final Report had been submitted showing insufficiency of evidence against the accused persons, the report dated 15.02.2026 placed before this Court disclosed a completely different position, namely, that though the investigation had revealed insufficient evidence and a Final Report was proposed, the same was still awaiting approval of the S.P., C.I.D., C.B., Cuttack. The inconsistency is glaring. These are not two versions capable of coexistence. If the Final Report had already been submitted, the question of awaiting approval did not arise. Conversely, if approval was still awaited, the statement made before this Court on 07.02.2024 could not have been correct. The subsequent affidavit dated 24.06.2026 filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police places on record the eventual submission of Final Form No.444 along with acknowledgement thereof. However, it does not answer the central concern of this Court. Neither the affidavit of the then Inspector-in-Charge nor that of the Superintendent of Police explains how this Court came to be informed on 07.02.2024 that the Final Report had already been submitted, when the later stand of the department itself suggested otherwise. The record, therefore, reveals much more than mere delay. It discloses a disturbing pattern of administrative apathy, lack of p. 5 coordination amongst investigating and supervisory authorities, unexplained inaction even after the supervision note dated 14.12.2023, and the furnishing of inconsistent factual positions before this Court. Such conduct is unacceptable and has the potential to erode public confidence in the fairness and credibility of the criminal justice system. 9. The present case is not an isolated aberration. It reflects a larger systemic malaise that continues to plague the criminal justice administration. Failure to promptly register cognizable offences and to conduct timely and effective investigations has increasingly become a matter of serious concern, compelling aggrieved citizens to repeatedly approach superior police authorities and, eventually, constitutional courts for redressal. 10. In Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court underscored the mandatory nature of registration of an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence. Equally important, however, is the obligation of the investigating agency to ensure a fair, prompt and effective investigation. Registration of an FIR is merely the first step in the criminal justice process; justice can be achieved only when the investigation proceeds with diligence, objectivity and expedition. 11. Delay in investigation remains one of the most serious impediments to the administration of criminal justice. It results in loss of evidence, fading of witness memory, increased possibility of interference with the investigative process and prolonged uncertainty for all stakeholders. Such delay not only undermines public confidence in law enforcement but also strikes at the p. 6 constitutional guarantee of fair and speedy justice implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. During the course of the present proceeding, the contemnor appeared pursuant to the directions of this Court and furnished affidavits explaining the circumstances in which the statement came to be made before this Court on 07.02.2024. The consistent stand taken by the department was that although the investigation had culminated in an opinion to submit a Final Report for insufficiency of evidence, the matter was awaiting approval from the S.P., C.I.D., C.B., Cuttack. The contemnor tendered an unconditional apology. Pursuant to further directions, the Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur also appeared through virtual mode and submitted that the complainant had been examined on the very day of registration of the FIR and that the investigation had ultimately culminated in submission of Final Form for want of sufficient evidence. While these explanations clarify the departmental position, they do not satisfactorily explain the prolonged delay or the inconsistent factual position placed before this Court regarding the status of the Final Report. 13. This Court is conscious that the present proceeding originated from an allegation of contempt. However, as the matter unfolded, the controversy assumed dimensions extending far beyond the conduct of any individual officer. The materials placed on record reveal systemic deficiencies in the manner in which the investigation was processed and supervised. In view of the explanation furnished, the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor and his appearance before this Court pursuant to its p. 7 directions, this Court is not inclined to pursue the matter further in its contempt jurisdiction. 14. That said, the record leaves little room for doubt that Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.87 of 2023 was handled in a manner falling short of the standards expected of a professional investigating agency. The delays that occurred at successive stages, the uncertainty surrounding the culmination of the investigation and the contradictory positions placed before this Court point to lapses at multiple levels of investigation and supervision. The issue, therefore, transcends individual responsibility and calls for a broader institutional scrutiny so that accountability may be fixed and corrective measures undertaken. That exercise must appropriately be undertaken departmentally upon examination of the entire case diary, supervisory notes, official correspondence and records maintained at various levels of the police administration. However, the facts brought to light during the present proceeding undoubtedly warrant such an enquiry. 15. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Director General of Police, Odisha and the Director General of Police, CID, CB, Odisha to cause an independent enquiry into the handling of Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.87 of 2023, including the delay in registration of the case, the subsequent course of investigation, the supervisory decisions taken from time to time, and the circumstances leading to the contradictory positions placed before this Court regarding the status of the Final Report. 16. The enquiry shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police, who shall identify the erring p. 8 officers responsible for any negligence, dereliction of duty, supervisory lapse or furnishing of incorrect information and recommend appropriate action in accordance with law. 17. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one (1) month from the date of communication of this order. Based upon the findings of the enquiry, consequential action shall follow. 18. The personal appearance of Mr. Ankit Berma, Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur, is dispensed with for today. 19. A copy of this order shall be communicated forthwith to the Director General of Police, Odisha and the Director General of Police, CID, CB, Odisha, for immediate compliance. 20. List this matter on 14.08.2026. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan/Bijay