p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 565 of 2026 1.Arabinda Pallai 2. Smt. Sakuntala Pallai ….. Petitioner Mr. Jayakrishna Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- 1.State of Odisha 2.The Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak 3.IIC, Bansada Police Station, Bhadrak 4. Jyotiranjan Rout 5. Anita Pallai 6.Usharani Rout ….. Opposite Parties Mr. S. K. Rout, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 18.05.2026 Order No. 02. (Through hybrid Mode) 1. This CRLMP has been filed with a direction to the Opposite Party No. 3- IIC, Bansada Police Station to produce the petitioner’s daughter before the Police Station as the parents of Opposite Party No.4 are violating the terms and conditions stipulated under Annexure-3 and not permitting the petitioner to see their daughter. 2. Considering the complaint of the petitioner submitted in the Bansada Police Station that their major daughter went missing on 06.04.2026, a MMR was registered. Thereafter, a settlement was reached between the petitioners and the parents of Opposite Party No.4 and it was agreed before the Police Station that they would be allowed to meet their daughter in the Police Station. 3. Hence, on 08.05.2026, the learned Additional Government p. 2 Advocate had been directed to obtain instructions whether the petitioners were able to meet their daughter, who had married Opposite Party No.4 as had been agreed between them in Bansada Police Station vide Annexure-3 on 08.04.2026. 3. Parawise comments dated 13.05.2026 of the IIC, Bansada Police Station have been received, where it is stated that the parents of Opposite Party No.4 were unable to produce the daughter of the petitioners as Opposite Party No.4 and she have left the state soon after the marriage and despite sincere steps being taken, they could not be located and they assured to produce the petitioner’s daughter as soon as possible after locating her and it is also stated that after return of the petitioner’s daughter to the native village, they would be facilitate to the petitioners to meet their daughter. 4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.4 and the daughter of the petitioner are staying in the house of Opposite Party No.4, which has been denied by the IIC. 5. As the police have stated that the Opposite Party No.4 and the daughter of the petitioner are staying outside the state, if complete information is provided to the IIC, Bansada Police Station that the daughter of the petitioner is staying in the village of Opposite Party No.4 or nearby, the IIC will take steps, to facilitate the petitioners to meet their daughter at the Police Station. 6. With this observation, the CRLMP is disposed of. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Subhalaxmi SAHOO