p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 77 of 2026 Manmohan Naik ….. Petitioner Ms. A. Nayak, Advocate -versus- 1.State of Odisha 2. IIC, Bantala P.S., Angul ….. Opposite Parties Mr. A. K. Apat, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 13.03.2026 Order No. 02. (Through hybrid Mode) 1. This CRLMP has been filed with the prayer to direct the Opposite Party to register the case and proceed with the investigation. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that a sale agreement (Annexure-1) had been executed between one Sanatan Dehury and late Mangaraj Naik, father of the petitioner on 14.05.1986. By virtue of Annexure-1, Sanatan Dehury had sold a piece of land to the father of the petitioner and had also issued a money receipt. Pursuant to such sale, Sanatan Dehury, the recorded owner had handed over possession of the land to Mangaraj Naik, father of the petitioner. After the death of Mangaraj Naik in 2018, the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the property and is enjoying the same. During the consolidation operation, the land has been recorded in the name of Bira Dehury, son of Sanatan Dehury. In the month of December, 2025, when the petitioner approached Sanatan Dehury to get the land recorded in his name, Sanatan and his son Bira Dehury p. 2 got annoyed and Sanatan Dehury denied to have executed any such agreement and abused the petitioner in filthy language referring to his caste and threatened him with dire consequences and that if he enters the land he shall be murdered. The petitioner had submitted a written complaint on 27.12.2025 before the IIC, Angul Police Station. As he did not register any case, the complaint was sent to him by speed post on 31.12.2025. Since, the case was not been registered, the petitioner has approached this Court. The unregistered agreement as well as the money receipt are annexed to the CRLMP. 3. Ms. A. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meanwhile a representation has been sent to SP, Angul by speed post. 4. Instruction dated 23.01.2026 of the IIC, Bantala PS, Angul is produced by Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate where it is stated as follows; “With reference to the subject cited above, it is to intimate that on 26.12.2025, Birakishore Dehury (40), S/o Sanatan Dehury of Village Madhapur, PS Bantala, Dist. Angul, reported at Bantala PS that one Manmohan Naik @ Madhu, S/o Late Mangaraj Naik, had forcibly taken away paddy from his labourer's working in his paddy field (Khata No.166/24 ownership recorded in the name of Birakishore Dehury and also threatened them to cut them into pieces. On the same day, Manmohan Naik was called to the PS to state his side, and on the next day he submitted another report alleging that during the year 1986 his father had given cash of Rs.5,700/- to Sanatan Dehury for a piece of paddy land near canal on area of 04 decimal. But nothing any document available / prepared except a hand note dtd. 14.05.1986. Since no sale deed is available and after the death of Sanatan Dehury, the legal hairs are not agreed with the p. 3 hand note. So neither they returned the money not handed over the paddy land. Subsequently, both parties amicably settled the matter with a written agreement, wherein Manmohan Naik returned two bags of paddy to Birakishore Dehury which had been taken by him forcibly, and further agreed that he would not enter the paddy field (Khata No.166/24) until the ownership of the said land is legally transferred in his name. In this regard GD. No. 02, dtd- 02.01.2026 has been made. As the matter is purely civil in nature and both parties have amicably settled it with a written agreement, they were advised to appear before the competent Hon'ble Civil Court for further redressal.” 5. Considering the nature of allegations, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct any of the Opposite Parties to register an FIR, but as alternate remedy is available to the petitioner, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage : (2016) 6 SCC 277, the petitioner is at liberty to avail of alternate remedy available to her, if so advised. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the allegation of the petitioner in her written complaint- Annexure-2. 7. With this observation, the CRLMP is disposed of. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Subhalaxmi SAHOO