CRLMP No.273 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 273 of 2026 An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Surendra Rath &. Petitioner -versus- 1.State of Odisha 2.Superintendent of Police, Jajpur 3. The IIC, Binjharpur PS, Jajpur &. Opp. Parties Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode : For Petitioner : Mr. Sashibhusan Das, Advocate For Opp. Party : Mr. S. K. Rout, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Date of Hearing & Judgment : 10.03.2026 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&. Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMP has been filed to direct the Opposite Party to register the FIR of the petitioner dated 30.01.2026 and protect the Petitioner from further harassment. BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE 2. The Petitioner has alleged that he was working as a small contractor under R & B Office, Panikoili and developed close ties with CRLMP No.273 of 2026 one Sri Dilip Dash and his family, including his daughter Smt. Subhashree Dash and her husband Sri Manoranjan Patra, who later involved the Petitioner in loan collection work as collection Agent. During 2023-24, a shortage of Rs. 6 lakhs arose in the account of Manoranjan Patra and at his request, the Petitioner arranged Rs. 6 lakhs from his mother and Mr. Manoranjan promised to return the said amount within three months but did not do so. So his wife in 2024, Smt. Subhashree Dash borrowed Rs. 5,50,000/- from Smt. Lalita Das who has money lending business and repaid the loan to the Petitioner. But when Smt. Subhashree Dash did not repay her, Smt. Lalita Das demanded Rs.15 lakhs from the petitioner towards loan and compound interest. The petitioner refused to pay the amount. On 28.01.2026, the relatives of Smt. Lalita Dash entered house of the petitioner, assaulted and threatened his mother, destroyed the valuable household property, and threatened to kill him, if he did not pay Rs. 15 lakhs and lodge false cases against him. He submitted FIR on 30.01.2026 before the IIC, Binjharpur Police Station but no case was registered. On 11.02.2026, he sent a petition under Section 173(4) of the BNSS by speed post to the SP, Jajpur, supported by an affidavit. SUBMISSION 5. Mr. S. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that CRLMP No.273 of 2026 relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Swarnalata Jena vs. State of Odisha and others reported in 2025(1) ILR CUT 701, when no case was registered on the basis of the petitioner9s FIR dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure-1), he had sent the copy of the petition along with affidavit by speed post on 11.02.2026 to the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur under Section 173(4) of the BNSS, but as no action was taken, he filed this CRLMP. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. S. K. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy and there was no necessity to send a petition supported by an affidavit to the S.P. STATUTORY PROVISION 7. Section 156 of the Cr.P.C corresponds to Section 3 173 and 175 of the BNSS. The provisions in the BNSS are more elaborate. The relevant portions of the two provisions are extracted below for easy reference:- Cr.P.C <Section 156. Police officer9s power to investigate cognizable case.4(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. CRLMP No.273 of 2026 (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned .= BNSS <Section 173(4)- Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1), may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate.= (emphasis supplied) <Section 3 175 (3) 3 Any Magistrate empowered under section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the CRLMP No.273 of 2026 police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned.= (emphasis supplied) JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS 8. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287, the Supreme Court has held as follows: <30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. 31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects CRLMP No.273 of 2026 should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumaris are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.= (emphasis supplied) In the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar vs State of Maharashtra : 2025 INSC 139, the Supreme Court has directed as follows : - CRLMP No.273 of 2026 <31.A comparison of Section 175(3) of the BNSS with Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. indicates three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS as follows: a. First, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3). b. Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR. c. Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3). 32.The introduction of these changes by the legislature can be attributed to the judicial evolution of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. undertaken by a number of decisions of this Court. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, this Court held that prior to making an application to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the applicant must necessarily make CRLMP No.273 of 2026 applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). It was further observed by the Court that applications made under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. must necessarily be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. The reason given by the Court for introducing such a requirement was that applications under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. were being made in a routine manner and in a number of cases only with a view to cause harassment to the accused by registration of FIR. It was further observed that the requirement of supporting the complaint with an affidavit would ensure that the person making the application is conscious and also to see that no false affidavit is made. Once an affidavit is found to be false, the applicant would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This would deter him from casually invoking the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3).= (emphasis supplied) In the case of Swarnalata Jena vs. State of Odisha and others :2025(1) ILR CUT 701, this Courthas observed as follows: <6. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has also held that unlike Sec.156(3) of the CrPC, any Magistrate, before ordering investigation U/S.175(3) of BNSS is required to:- (a) consider the application, supported by an affidavit, made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police U/S. 173(4) of the BNSS; CRLMP No.273 of 2026 (b) conduct such enquiry as he thinks necessary;and (c) consider the submission made by the police officer. In view of the decision in Om PrakashAmbadkar (supra), it is mandatory for the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned Police Officer, so as to apply his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submission of the police officer, thereby ensuring the requirement of passing reason orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner.= In the case Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage :(2016) 6 SCC 277 , the Supreme Court has held 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 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 judgment 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 CRLMP No.273 of 2026 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.= ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 9. Before coming into force of the BNSS, the Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava (Supra), while considering an application regarding issue of direction under Section -156 (3) of the Cr.P.C by the Magistrate to the local police for registration of FIR, has held that such application should be supported by an affidavit. 10. In the case of Om Prakash (supra) the Supreme Court has held that the application sent to the S.P. should be enclosed with the application filed before the Magistrate and the application submitted to the Magistrate should be supported by an affidavit. 11. From a reading of the provisions of Section 173(4) which provides for submitting complaint to the S.P. by post and the provisions of Section 175 (3) of the BNSS which provides that the application to CRLMP No.273 of 2026 be filed before the Magistrate should be supported by an affidavit, it is apparent that there is no requirement in the BNSS that the application / complaint sent to the S.P. should be supported by an affidavit. 12. In the case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao (supra), the Supreme Court has held that if the High Court entertained writ petitions dealing with non-registration of FIR, it would be flooded with such applications, and permitted the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate. 13. In view of the nature of allegations, I do not consider this to be fit case to exercise discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the police to register a case. 14. The petitioner is at liberty to avail of alternate remedy which is available to him under law. 15. The CRLMP is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. &&&&&&&&& (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated 10th March, 2026/Subhalaxmi SAHOO