p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 203 of 2026 Sapan Kumar Adak ….. Petitioner Mr. J.K. Padhi, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Odisha 3. Superintendent of Police, Balasore 4. Inspector in Charge, Simulia Police Station, Balasore ….. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Rout, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 16.03.2026 Order No. 03. (Through hybrid mode) 1. This CRLMP has been filed with the following prayer:- “In view of this above mentioned circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously be pleased to direct the I.I.C. Simulia Police Station (opp.party no.4) to take appropriate action against the accused person and arrest the accused and start the investigation of the Simulia PS Case No.316 of 2025 which was registered on dated 25.6.2025 by the opp.party no.4.” 2. On 26.02.2026, the instructions dated 21.02.2026 of the IIC, Simulia P.S. were produced before this Court. As the Court found number of mistakes in the instructions, it was observed as follows: “During course of investigation, IO visited the spot, examined the Complt. and available witnesses and recorded their statements U/s-180 BNSS. During investigation, on p. 2 being asked to Complt. to produce the detail transaction documents before IO for verification, seizure and for further investigation, the Complt. showed his inability to produce the above documents and assured 10 that, he will produce the same before him very shortly. The incident took place (T) online transaction and the alleged accused was at Nandigama, Kothur, Dist- Rangareddy, State Telengana, being an employee in L. J. Enterprise during the occurrence and the Complt. was at his native village. The IO had conducted raid to apprehend the alleged accused Lokanath Panigrahi, but found him absent in his house. On being asked to his family members about the present whereabouts of alleged accd Lokanath Panigrahi, they stated that, they have no information about Lokanath Panigrahi and he never contacted with his family members since long. During further course of investigation, IO had tried to contact with alleged accd Lokanath Panigrahi, but his mobile phone was not in use. Neither the alleged accd, Lokanath Panigrahi visited the PS nor co-operated police in investigation. On the other hand, inspite of repeated contact, the complt. also avoided to come to Police Station for the purpose of investigation and to produce the relevant documents before the IO. However, the complt. was requested by IO to come to Simulia PS and co-operate in investigation.” 3. In spite of this order on 12.03.2026, the copy of the case diary had not been obtained. Hence, in order to give another chance to the IIC, the case was adjourned to 13.03.2026. On the said date, the matter could not be taken up and has been listed today i.e. 16.03.2026. Page 3 of 6 4. The copy of the case diary containing entries upto 12.03.2026 and instructions dated 12.03.2026 of the IIC, Simulia P.S. are produced by Mr. S.K. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel. The same are taken on record. It is scanned and incorporated in the digital record. 5. It appears that in spite of registering the FIR, the complainant was not asked to hand over the supporting documents. 6. Perusal of the case diary reveals that pursuant to order passed by this Court in CRLMP No. 616 of 2025, Simulia P.S. Case No. 316 dated 25.06.2025 has been registered under Section 318 (4) of the BNS Act against one Lokanath Panigrahi. The case diary also reveals that the Petitioner (Complainant) was examined on 25.06.2025 on the date FIR was registered and he had been instructed to come on the next date (26.06.2025), he was directed to appear at the Police Station. On 26.06.2025, he had come to the Police Station and stated that he had come as per the direction of the Police and was ready to cooperate with the investigation. During spot visit, after examination of the witnesses, it was found that the accused Lokanath Panigrahi has been staying outside from his village since long and used to come to the village very often and before two years he had been at Hyderabad area and nobody could able to say his real profession. I.O. has discussed with the complainant to know the details about him but it was found during verification that only the xerox copy of CRLMP No. 616 of 2025 and order dated 17.06.2025 of the High Court had been enclosed with the FIR for which the complainant was advised to provide all the above detailed documents for further investigation of the case and the p. 4 complainant had assured to provide the same shortly. Thereafter, the subsequent entries are on 13.07.2025, 02.08.2025, 29.09.2025, 18.11.2025 and 03.01.2026 where identical entry which is extracted below is appears in the case diary: “Searched for alleged accused person Lokanath Panigrahi in his house, but found him absent. On being asked to the family members of alleged accused, they are unable to say the present whereabouts of the accused person. They also told that, Lokanath Panigrahi never contact with them for long. However, instructed the mother of alleged accused to intimate to her son Lokanath in any way and advise him to come to Simulia Police Station for the purpose of investigation.” 7. The same entry appears on 13.07.2025, 29.09.2025 and 03.01.2026. However, there is an entry on 02.08.2025 that the I.O. searched for the complainant in his village and came to know that he is residing at Hyderabad and advised them to send complainant- Sapan Kumar Adak to Simulia Police Station with all relevant documents. On 18.11.2025, the following entries have been made: “Discussed with the complt. over phone and asked him about the related documents which are to be produced before me for further investigation of the case. On this complt. told me that, he is at outside state i.e Hyderabad and unable to produce the documents before me right now and assured me to produce the same within very short time. Contacted with the alleged accd. person Lokanath Panigrahi over mobile phone (9078899163/8688198461) and discussed with him about the instant case. During discussion the alleged accd. stated that, he is out of state and has good p. 5 relation with the complt. Sapan Kumar Adak and basing on this relation some business transaction has been made, but no manipulation activities have been done by him. However, the alleged accd. is instructed to come to Simulia PS for the purpose of investigation and verification. The alleged accd. Lokanath Panigrahi also assured me to co-operate in investigation and will appear at Simulia PS very shortly.” 8. It was found that on 07.03.2026, notice under Section 94 of the BNSS had been sent to the complainant Sapan Kumar Adak with the direction to produce the relevant documents relating to his allegation of this case within seven days of receipt of the notice. On 12.03.2026, the criminal antecedents of Lokanath Panigrahi were ascertained but noting appears was found adverse against him in the locality. 9. From instructions dated 12.03.2026 of the IIC, Simulia Police Station, it is apparent that the IIC, Simulia Police Station has not submitted correct instructions to this Court when he says that the Mobile Phone of accused Lokanath Panigrahi was switched off for which the I.O. had tried to contact with the accused Lokanath Panigrahi over but his mobile phone was not in use is not correct as entry in the case diary reveals that the I.O. had contacted the accused Lokanath Panigrahi over his mobile on 18.11.2025. 10. From this, it is apparent that apart from not conducting investigation in a proper manner, incorrect instructions are being provided to the Court for reasons best known to the IIC. 11. In this view of the matter, although there is no prayer in the CRLMP for transferring the investigation to any other Officer or Authority, this Court feels that either the I.O. may not be competent p. 6 puspa or confident enough to conduct the investigation in this case for which he has kept the investigation pending. Hence, the Superintendent of Police, Balasore-Opposite Party No.3 is directed to transfer the investigation to the Cyber Police Station, Balasore as it is stated by Mr. S.K. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel that he has obtained instructions from the I.O. in the case. 12. With the above observations, the CRLMP is disposed of. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Designation: Personal Assistant