IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 216 of 2026 Anita Pradhan ….. Petitioner Mr. Siva Sankar Chaini, Advocate -versus- 1.State of Odisha 2. Collector and District Magistrate, Cuttack 3. The IIC, Madhupatna Police Station, Bhubaneswar ….. Opposite Parties Mr. Amitav Pradhan, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 19.03.2026 Order No. 03. (Through hybrid mode) 1. This CRLMP has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus calling upon the Opposite Party no.2 to show cause as-to why they should not be directed to dispose of the representation/application dated 03.07.2025 vide Annexure-2 within a stipulated time. 2. Mr. S.S. Chaini, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that she had filed 1CC Case No. 160 of 2022 against her two brothers, namely, Prasanta Kumar Jena and Sushanta Kumar Jena alleging that the accused persons had manipulated the record and sold the shares of the complainant where it is stated as follows:- “C. That, the complainant has applied for the mutation copy and certified copy of the sale deed to get the amount of misappropriation of property. After getting sale deed as given below in the table, it is found that by taking help of the government revenue officials, the accused persons had manipulated the record and sale the shares of the complainant.” 3. On the basis of the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (CT), Cuttack under Section 156(3) of the BNSS, Madhupatna P.S. Case No. 311 of 2022 was registered against Prasanta Kumar Jena and Sushanta Kumar Jena on 31.102022. After completion of investigation on 03.12.2024, charge sheet for commission of offences punishable under Section 406,420,468,467,34 of the IPC have been submitted against both of them. As it is the allegation of the petitioner that the then RI Chittaranjan Pattnaik in connivance with the two accused persons Prasanta Kumar Jena and Sushanta Kumar Jena had submitted a report stating that the co-accused persons were the only legal heirs of Niranjan Jena. Case under Section 406,420,468,467,34 of the IPC is made out against him. Hence, he has filed a representation along with Annexures by registered post on 03.07.2025 praying for grant of sanction for prosecution of RI of Nuapada, namely, Chittaranjan Pattnaik, who has since retired. But since no action has been taken on the representation, he has approached this Court. 4. Mr. A. Pradhan, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that this application is not maintainable as the petitioner had not named the said accused either in his complaint petition or in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., He also submits that since investigation in the case has been completed, the remedy of the petitioner lies before the learned Magistrate, before whom the charge sheet has been filed. He also submits that the stage has not arrived where grant of sanction or filing of sanction is necessary. 5. Considering the facts of the case and as investigation in Madhupatna PS Case No. 311 of 2022 has been concluded and charge sheet submitted before the learned JMFC-IV, Cuttack, I am not inclined to issue any direction to Opposite Parties for disposal of the said representation as remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the learned JMFC, before whom the case is pending. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage : (2016) 6 SCC 277, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternate remedy which is available to her under law. 6. With this above observation, the CRLMP is disposed of. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Subhalaxmi SAHOO