Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10162 (ORI)

BIREN KUMAR JENA v. STATE OF ODISHA

CRLMP/193/2026 · 2026-02-23

Miss Savitri Ratho

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 193 of 2026 Biren Kumar Jena …. Petitioner Mr. B. Rout, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha, represented through it's Principal Secretary, Home Department, Bhubaneswar 2. Director General of Police, Odisha, Cuttack 3. Deputy Commissioner police, Cuttack – Bhubaneswar 4. I.I.C., Jagatpur Police station, Cuttack …. Opp. Parties Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 23.02.2026 (Through hybrid Mode) 01. 1. This CRLMP has been filed for a direction to Opposite Party No.4 – I.I.C., Jagatpur Police Station to register the written report dated 17.11.2025 under Annexure-1 as FIR. 2. After perusing the CRLMP and Annexures, it is apparent that there is no document on record to indicate that the written report dated 17.11.2025 had been submitted to the I.I.C., Jagatpur Police Station. There are two registration receipts which indicates that Rs.19/- has been paid towards speed post charges on the envelopes addressed to the DCP, Cuttack and the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar. 3. There is nothing in the synopsis regarding the allegation made by the Petitioner and the list of dates and events contains two dates i.e. 17.11.2025 and 01.12.2025. 4. The Petitioner has made inter alia alleged that one employee of Bank of Baroda had asked for Rs.3,00,000/- for waiving the loan amount and therefore, he paid Rs.5000/- though PhonePe and Rs.80,000/- by cash. Subsequently, he came to learn that he has been cheated of the amount of Rs.85,000/- and lodged the FIR. 5. As no documents have been filed to indicate sending of the complaint to the I.I.C., Jagatpur Police Station on 17.11.2025 or the DCP on 01.12.2025 and in view of the nature of allegations, I am not satisfied that it is a fit case for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the opposite parties to register a case on the FIR of the Petitioner. 6. It is open to the Petitioner to avail alternate remedy, if he is so advised. 7. With this observation, the CRLMP is disposed of. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Sukanta Designation: Senior Stenographer