IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 768 of 2026 Sukanti Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. Padmanava Jena, Advocate -versus- 1.State of Odisha 2.Director General of Police, Cuttack 3.Superintendent of Police, Cuttack 4.IIC, Tangi Police Station, Cuttack 5.Balabhadra Sahu …. Opp. Parties Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 01. 25.06.2026 (Through hybrid Mode) 1. This CRLMP has been filed to direct the Opposite Party No. 3 and 4 to take appropriate action in pursuance of the FIR dated 23.04.2026 vide Annexure-1. 2. The Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v/s Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others : (2016) 6 SCC 277, has held as follows : - “2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.:(2008) 2 SCC 409, that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case (2008) 2 SCC 409, because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation. 3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.” 3. After hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner, perusing the CRLMP, Annexures and in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao (supra), the CRLMP is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy which is available to her under Section 175 (3) of the BNSS. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Subhalaxmi SAHOO