IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.702 of 2026 Manjulata Behera …Petitioner Mr.Byomakesh Tripathy, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha, represented by the Secreta Home Department, Bhubaneswar 2. The Superintendent of Police, Cuttack 3. The Inspector-in-Charge, Salepur Police Station, Cuttack. …. Opposite Parties Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 22.06.2026 01. (Through Hybrid Mode) 1. This CRLMP has been filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 to register the written information as FIR. 2. Mr. S.K. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel produces the instructions dated 01.06.2026 of the IIC, Salipur Police Station wherein it is stated that on verification of the records of the Police Station, it was found that no written report was received by this Police Statin either in person or through post from the Petitioner. On verification of further documents after downloading from official website it was further found that the Petitioner had sent her written report through speed post addressed to the IIC, Kudanagari Police Station, Kendrapara and not to the IIC, Salipur Police Station. It is also stated that if any complaint is received in this Police Station in future, necessary action shall be taken promptly in accordance with law. 3. Mr. B. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has three minor children her husband is addicted to alcohol for which he under the influence of alcohol subjects her to physical and mental torture often. On one occasion, after she had been assaulted mercilessly she had called the PCR van and police stopped him, But after the police left, she was again assaulted and thrown out of the house with her children for which on 08.02.2026, she had handed over an FIR to the IIC, Salipur Police Station but no action was taken for which, she sent the complaint to the IIC on 19.02.2026 by Speed Post followed by the grievance petition to the Superintendent of Police, Cuttack on 05.03.2026 by Speed Post. 4. The learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.: AIR (2014) Vol.2 SCC 1 (incorrect citation); State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others; (1992) Supp Vol.1 SCC Page 335; S.Sudershan v. State : SCC (2006) Vol.10 Page 163 and State of West Bengal and others v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others : AIR (2010) SC Page 1476. But he does not have copy of the said decisions and submits that the Petitioner is not interested in registration of the case against her husband, but if the police intervene in the matter so that she and her children are taken back by her husband, without registering any case, the Petitioner would be benefited. 5. The submission of the learned counsel that the Petitioner is somewhat unusual, but considering the submission that the Petitioner has three minor children and is interested for normalization of her marital life, the CRLMP is disposed of directing the IIC, Salipur Police Station to use his good office to first enquire into the matter and find out if the matter between the Petitioner and her husband can be settled, so that the Petitioner will be able to return to the house of her husband with her three minor children and lead a normal family life. RKS (Savitri Ratho) Judge