p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 175 of 2026 Madhusudan Singh @ Madhu ….. Petitioner Mr. Bijaya Kumar Sahoo, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Superintendent of Police, Nayagarh 3. The Inspector-in-charge, Odagaon Police Station, Nayagarh ….. Opposite Parties Mr. A.K. Apat, AGA CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 27.02.2026 Order No. 02. (Through hybrid mode) 1. This CRLMP has been filed with the prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 436 of 2025 pending before the learned Gram Nyayalaya-cum-JMFC, Odagaon which arises out of Odagaon P.S. Case No. 261 of 2025 so far as it relates to the Petitioner. 2. Mr. B.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that perusal of the written FIR submitted by the complainant-Prafulla Mohanty would reveal that the informant had not made any allegation against the Petitioner nor named him. He had however stated that one Sadhu Singh, S/o- Indramani Singh along with other accused persons had assaulted the informant. But while registering p. 2 the formal FIR, the name of the Petitioner- Madhu, S/o- Indramani Singh was mentioned and the name of Sadhu Singh, S/o- Indramani Singh mentioned in the written complaint was omitted. This is obviously either a mistake or deliberate action of the officer registering the FIR. This is because, the FIR has been registered without conducting any enquiry, so the case which disclosed cognizable offences should have been registered only against the persons named in the complaint. 3. On 20.02.2026, the learned State Counsel had been directed to obtain instructions from the I.O. as to how he could register the case against Madhu Singh, S/o- Indramani Singh as there is no allegation against him in the written FIR. 4. The instructions dated 26.02.2026 of the IIC, Model Police Station, Odagaon along with the copy of the case diary is produced by Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate where it is stated as follows: “In obedience to the CRLMP cited above, I have the honour to report that on dated 24.08.2025 at 6.10 PM, one Prafulla Mohanty (60), S/o Debraj Mohanty of Village Lingaraj Prasad, PS Odagaon, Dist. Nayagarh, reported that the accused persons namely: (1) Soumyaranjan Singh S/o Madhu Singh, (2) Tofan Singh S/o Indramani Singh, (3) Panchu Singh S/o Indramani Singh, (4) Jadumani Singh S/o p. 3 Indramani Singh, (5) Sadhu Singh S/o Indramani Singh, (6) Kubermani Singh S/o Indramani Singh, and (7) Bulu Mohanty S/o Debraj Mohanty, all of Village Lingaraj Prasad, PS Odagaon, Dist. Nayagarh, restrained him and assaulted him by means of fist blows and lathi after abusing him in slang language and threatening him with dire consequences, thereby forming a rioting-like situation with common object. Hence, he reported the matter at the PS for taking legal action. As it revealed a cognizable case, Sri Abhaya Behera, the then IIC of Odagaon PS, registered Odagaon PS Case No. 261 dated 24.08.2025 U/s 126(2) /296 /191(2) /191(3) /115(2) /351(3) /190 BNS and directed SI C.D. Singh to take up investigation of the case. During uploading of the FIR in the CCTNS module, by mistake one name was entered as Madhu Singh S/o Indramani Singh instead of Sadhu Singh S/o Indramani Singh. During the course of investigation, the IO, SI C.D. Singh, visited the spot, examined the complainant and other witnesses, and it was ascertained that Madhu Singh is involved in this case. During investigation, Madhu Singh S/o Indramani Singh received Form 35(3) BNSS, put his signature on it, and also submitted his signed Aadhaar card. Thereafter, the IO, SI Chakradhar Singh of Odagaon PS, submitted charge sheet vide Odagaon PS FF No. 308 dated 18.10.2025 U/s 126(2)/296/191(2)/191(3)/115(2)/351(3)/190 BNS against the accused persons namely: (1) Soumyaranjan Singh S/o Madhu Singh, (2) Tofan Singh S/o Indramani Singh, (3) Panchu Singh S/o Indramani Singh, (4) Jadumani Singh S/o Indramani Singh, (5) Madhu Singh S/o Indramani Singh, (6) Kubermani Singh S/o Indramani Singh, and (7) p. 4 Bulu Mohanty S/o Debraj Mohanty, all of Village Lingaraj Prasad, PS Odagaon, Dist. Nayagarh.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. In the instruction, the IIC has mentioned that the name of Sadhu Singh was mentioned as Madhu Singh by mistake, while uploading the FIR in the module. He has also mentioned that it was ascertained during investigation that Madhu Singh is involved the case. 6. Perusal of the copy of the case diary reveals that after receipt of FIR, the case has been registered by the S.I. on 24.08.2025, without conducting any enquiry. There is no noting/ entry anywhere indicating that the I.O. was aware about the wrong entry of name of the Petitioner at the time of registration of the FIR. He has examined the informant and witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 180 of the BNSS on 24.08.2025 and served notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, on the accused persons (against whom FIR has been registered), on the very next day i.e. 25.08.2025. It is stated in the case diary that the accused persons appeared in the Police Station on 01.09.2025 and on examination, none of the accused persons cited any defence. It is not stated in the confidential enquiry conducted on 01.09.2025, that Madhu Singh is involved in p. 5 the case instead of Sadhu Singh. Thereafter after more than one month, on 13.10.2025, the I.O. discussed the matter with his IIC and submitted DIR. The DIR was submitted to the SDPO and on receipt of order from SDPO, chargesheet was submitted against the seven accused on 18.10.2025 including the Petitioner. So it is apparent that mistake about the name, came to the knowledge of the I.O., for the first time when instructions were called for by this Court as there is no mention about it anywhere in the case diary. 7. The informant has also not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS that in the written complaint, he had mentioned the name of Sadhu Singh in place of Madhu Singh by mistake. The other witnesses whose statements have been recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS have also not stated that the informant had named Sadhu Singh instead of Madhu Singh by mistake. Although admitted by the IIC in his instructions that name of the petitioner was uploaded in the module by mistake, but there is no explanation in the instructions nor in the case diary that on account of some mistake while writing the written complaint , the informant had not named the Petitioner for which his name was entered in the formal FIR in place of Sadhu Singh. It is not mentioned anywhere in the case diary or in the statements of the p. 6 witnesses that the petitioner – Madhu Singh was involved and not Sadhu Singh. Nor is it mentioned anywhere in the case diary that there is no person in the village by the name of Sadhu Singh, Son of Indramani Singh. 8. In the instructions, it is stated that during investigation, the present Petitioner received Form 35 (3) of the BNSS and put his signature on it and also submitted his signed copy of his Aadhaar Card. It goes without saying that when the Police issue a notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, and the person concerned complies with such notice or signs on it or on the Form of the notice, this is not indicative of his guilt or involvement in the case but only indicates that notice has been served or that he has signed on the notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS and agreed to comply with the conditions for cooperating with the investigation. 9. As it is apparent that the Petitioner was not named in the complaint/ written FIR, the case could not have been registered against him. The mistake including his name at the time of registration of the case has been admitted, but from the discussion above, it is apparent that thereafter chargesheet has been submitted mechanically against him. 10. Normally, I would not have exercised the power under Article p. 7 Corrected vide Order No.3 dated 11.03.2026 Sd/- (Savitri Ratho) Judge puspa 226 of the Constitution of India as the chargesheet has been filed in the meanwhile and would have relegated the Petitioner to challenge the order of cognizance. But in view of the facts, circumstances of the case as discussed above, I consider this to be a fit case to exercise discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and chargesheet so far as the Petitioner is concerned. 11. It is accordingly ordered that the formal FIR in Odagaon P.S. Case No. 261 of 2025 which corresponds to G.R. Case No. 436 of 2025 in the file of the learned *SDJM, Bhadrak Gram Nyayalaya- cum-JMFC, Odagaon and the chargesheet so far as it relates to the Petitioner-Madhusudan Singh @ Madhu. The GR case shall proceed against the other accused persons in accordance with law. 12. The CRLMP is accordingly allowed. 13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. 14. Copy of this order be sent to the Court of the learned Gram Nyayalaya-cum-JMFC, Odagaon, by the Registry forthwith. (Savitri Ratho) Judge