p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.620 of 2026 Dibyaranjan Bhoi …. Petitioner Mr. H.K. Mohanta, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha, represented through its Secretary, Home Department, Bhubaneswar 2. Superintendent of Police, Balasore 3. Inspector-in-Charge, Balasore Sadar Police Station, Balasore 4. Tusar Kumar Sahoo 5. Kamal Lochan Nath 6. Tapas Ranjan Rout 7. Styajit Nayak 8. Jatyendra Mohakud 9. Rajendra Kumar Patra 10. Narendra Goswami …. Opposite Parties Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 18.05.2026 01. (Through hybrid mode) 1. This CRLMP has been filed with the following prayer. “.. .. .. calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the Opp. Parties No.2 & 3 shall not be directed to arrest the Op. Parties No.4 and 10 in connection with Balasore Sadar PS Case No.0063 dtd. 30.01.2026, G.R. No.22 of 2025 pending in the Court of p. 2 the learned SDJM, Balasore and bring them to the court of justice within a stipulated period and why said case shall not be investigated properly. .. .. ..” 2. Perused the FIR in Balasore PS Case No.63 dated 30.01.2026 which is at Annexure-7. The allegation in brief is that accused Tusar Kanta Sahoo along with his associates Rajendra Kumar Patra, Narendra Goswami, Kamal Lochan Nath, Tapas Ranjan Rout, Satyajeet Nayak and Jatyendra Mahakud cheated the complainant with an assurance to get him a job in the Railways and took away cash of Rs.13,76,000/- from the complainant. 3. Mr. H.K. Mohanta, learned counsel for the Petitioner apart from the grievance that the police is not investigating the matter in proper manner, submits that the accused persons are threatening the Petitioner to withdraw the case. 4. The Petitioner claims to have paid cash of Rs.13,76,000/- in order to get a job in the Railways. This is a pernicious practice of paying money for a job, where neither the informant nor the accused deserve any sympathy. 5. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the CRLMP, which is accordingly dismissed. p. 3 6. After dismissal of the case, Mr. Mohanta, learned counsel for the Petitioner wants to withdraw this application. 7. Since the case has already been dismissed, the prayer for withdrawal is rejected. (Savitri Ratho) Judge RKS