p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 01 of 2026 Kunu Meher ….. Petitioner Mr. G. N. Parida, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Orissa 2. Superintendent of Police, Bargarh 3. IIC, Bargarh ….. Opp. Parties Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout, A.S.C. CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 16.01.2026 Order No. 02. (Through hybrid Mode) 1. This CRLMP has been filed for directing the Opposite Party No.3 to conclude the investigation and file the charge sheet/preliminary charge sheet in relation to Bijepur PS Case No. 111 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No. 109 of 2025 pending in the file of the learned JMFC, Bijepur for commission of offences punishable under sections 324(2), 326(a),351(3), 329(3), 307, 309(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Mr. G. N. Parida, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that on 19.01.2025, in spite of direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS for registration of a case, the IIC, Bijepur Police Station did not register the case for which a show cause was called for from him as to why contempt proceeding should not be initiated against him by order dated 06.05.2025. Thereafter, Bijepur PS Case No. 111 of 2025 was registered on 15.05.2025. Even after the registration of the FIR, no steps have p. 2 been taken for investigation. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others reported in 2016 (6) SCC 277 has observed as follows:- “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 d 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. 4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment¹ of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court.” 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra), the CRLMP is disposed of granting liberty to the p. 3 petitioner to avail the alternate remedy which is available to him under the law. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Subhalaxmi SAHOO