p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 379 of 2026 Charulata Dalai …. Petitioner Mr. B. Pasayat, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha represented through its Secretary, Department of Home, Bhubaneswar 2. The Director General of Police, Odisha, Cuttack 3. The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Puri 4. The Superintendent of Police, Puri 5. The Tahasildar, Astarang 6. The Inspector-In-Charge, Astaranga Police Station …. Opp. Parties Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 08.05.2026 (Through hybrid Mode) 05. 1. This CRLMP has been filed with the following prayer; “It is therefore prayed that let this Hon'ble Court may graciously he pleased to issue rule NISI by calling upon the Opp. Parties to file show cause as to why; i) the investigation in Astaranga P.S. Case No. 52 of 2025 has not yet been commenced in respect with the above named culprits; p. 2 ii) the legal action has not yet been taken against the culprits/accused persons, who have implicated in a cognizable offences; iii) the Astaranga P.S. Case No. 52 of 2025, shall not be handed over to any other investigating agency for fair, impartial and expeditious investigation; If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the rule absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions to transfer the investigation of Astaranga P.S. Case No. 52 of 2025, to any other Police Station or any other impartial Investigating Agency for fair, impartial and expeditious investigation of the aforesaid case and take appropriate steps in accordance with the procedure laid down under Law.” 2. On 23.04.2026, the learned Additional Standing Counsel had produced the charge sheet along with the up to date case diary and other connected paper in Astaranga P.S. Case No. 52 of 2025, which reveals that charge sheet dated 31.03.2026 had been submitted against 50 persons who were not arrested to face the trial in the Court of law. The following observations had been made after perusing the case diary; “Perusal of the case diary reveals that on 08.05.2025, as P.K. Biswal, ASI, Astaranga P.S. was transferred, charge was taken by the IIC, Astaranga P.S. who had handed over investigation to ASI, P.K. p. 3 Samantaray on the same and he was taken charge of investigation. On 10.06.2025, he re-examined the complainant but has not recorded her statement as she corroborated the FIR and her statement under Section 180 of the BNSS which was recorded by previous I.O. He re-visited the spot but spot map has already been prepared so it is noted that no spot map is required. He also stated that he has re-examined the PWs and SWs who corroborated their statements. However, the names of the witnesses whom he examined and where and how, has not been mentioned. He has also stated that he searched for chance witnesses but no witnesses were available and he searched for other suspect persons but found them absent. He also engaged spy’s and sources to keep close watch over the movement of the above noted suspect persons (whose names had not been indicated) to intimate him on getting information. Then he discussed with his IIC about progress of investigation who gave some valuable instructions which should be carried out his instructions. Thereafter there has been no investigation in the case or valuable instructions of the IIC has not been followed but on 22.03.2026, the diary has been opened and investigation resumed, chance witnesses were searched for but none were available. The case was supervised by Ms. Bidita Nayak, IIC, Astaranga P.S. She searched for neighbors who might have seen p. 4 the occurrence but nobody came forward. She examined the scribe of the FIR, Alekha Charan Bastia. On 29.03.2026, supervision note of the IIC, Astaranga P.S. was received and he has returned the result of his confidential/local enquiry. It is stated that P.R. under Section 126 of the BNSS has already been submitted against both parties to prevent breach of peace in their village. It is also stated that no house hold articles were seized as the occurrence had occurred long ago. On 30.03.2026, he discussed the matter with the IIC about progress of investigation and after submission of DCO-3 to the S.P., Puri for filing of chargesheet and on 31.03.2026 orders were received from the S.P., Puri vide memo No. NIL/CR dated. NIL.3.2026 to submit chargesheet and chargesheet has accordingly been submitted on 31.03.2026.” 3. As Mr. B. Pasayat, learned counsel for the petitioner was not present on the said date, the matter had been adjourned to today. 4. Mr. B. Pasayat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation has not been conducted properly in the case as the offence under Section 303(2) of the BNS has been left out from the charge sheet. He further submits that proper investigation has not been done and as has been rightly observed by this Court, even though investigation was taken over by the p. 5 IIC, without re-examining the witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted in a hurry while the CRLMP was sub-judice before this Court. He further submits that there was no reason for filing the charge sheet in a hurry as there was no accused in custody. 5. Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that since investigation had been completed, there was no reason to wait for submission of charge sheet, even though the CRLMP was pending before this Court. He also submits that since FIR had been submitted since 20.03.2025 and one year had been completed, so charge sheet has been rightly submitted and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet has been submitted in a hurry is not correct. 6. After hearing the submissions of Mr. B. Pasayat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel and perusing the case diary as well as the charge sheet, this Court is of the view that neither the IO nor the IIC showed any urgency or sincerity in carrying out the investigation in this case even though the case was registered on 20.03.2025. Only after the CRLMP was filed in this Court and instructions were called for, the charge sheet has been filed p. 6 showing sudden haste while the allegations in the CRLMP were being considered by this Court. 7. As observed by this Court in order dated 23.04.2026 after going through the case diary, P.K. Samantray, the ASI who has taken over investigation of the case on 08.05.2025 has recorded in the case dairy that he has re-examined the complainant but not recorded his statement as she corroborated the FIR and her statement had earlier been recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS is not correct as Mr. B. Pasayat, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the informant has not been re- examined by this IO. 8. If these purported re-examinations were actually conducted on 10.06.2025, there was no reason as to why investigation in the case was not concluded and instead kept pending for so many months. All of a sudden after the CRLMP was filed and instructions were called for by this Court, the charge sheet has been filed. 9. Defective and biased investigation, shake the faith which the public reposes in the police. In the case of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2010) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: p. 7 “… … … It is not only the responsibility of the investigating agency but as well that of the Courts to ensure that investigation is fair and does not in any way hamper the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. Equally enforceable canon of criminal law is that the high responsibility lies upon the investigating agency not to conduct an investigation in tainted and unfair manner. The investigation should not prima facie be indicative of bias mind and every effort should be made to bring the guilty to law as nobody stands above law de hors his position and influence in the society. … … …” 10. Hence, the Superintendent of Police, Puri shall do well to enquire into the matter and if it is found that without proper investigation and only to avoid adverse remarks from this Court, charge sheet has been filed, appropriate action in accordance with law should be taken by him. 11. Since charge sheet has already been filed, it is open to the informant to challenge the charge sheet in the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 12. Case Diary which has been submitted for perusal of the Court, is returned to the learned State Counsel. 13. The CRLMP is accordingly disposed of. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Subhalaxmi/RKS