IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 503 of 2026 Naresh Singh …. Petitioner Mr. Saroj Kumar Dash, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. D.G. & I.G. of Police, Odisha, Headquarter at-Buxi Bazar, Cuttack 3. Superintendent of Police, Sambalpur 4. Inspector-in-Charge, Ainthapalli Police Station, Ainthapalli, District- Sambalpur …. Opposite Parties Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 22.04.2026 (Through hybrid Mode) 01. 1. This CRLMP has been filed with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court my graciously be pleased to admit this case, issue notice to the opposite parties, and after hearing the parties direction may kindly be issued to the Opp.parties specifically to Opp.party No.4 to investigate the case properly and to submit the seizure list under which the vehicle of the petitioner S-Cross Smart Hybrid Zetu bearing Regn. No. OD 23 K 2300 was seized before the jurisdictional Court facilitating the petitioner to release his above vehicle in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. Saroj Kumar Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he had submitted a complaint before the IIC, Ainthapalli Police Station on 03.12.2025 that one Raja and Raju had come on a black colour motor cycle bearing Registration No. OD 15 H 2496 and suddenly stopped his car bearing Registration No. OD 23 K 2300 and scolded him, humiliated him and threatened to kill him if he did not give his car key and they forcibly took away his car and the driver to wards stock yard of Sindurpank. On basis of the complaint, Ainthapalli P.S. Case No. 400 of 2025 was registered against Raja and Raju under Section 309 (4) of the BNS. 3. Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, learned Additional Standing Counsel produces the instructions dated 19.04.2026 of the IIC, Ainthapalli P.S., District-Sambalpur where it is stated that investigation reveals that the Petitioner is the registered owner of Maruti Suzuki S-Cross Car bearing Registration No. OD 23 K 2300. The same had been purchased in the year 2020 being financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. having 65 numbers loan tenure, EMI of Rs.19,450/- per month. Page 3 of 4 As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement were not fulfilled and the Petitioner committed a default, Advocate Notice had been issued to him but the Petitioner chose to ignore the same and continued to default for which the authorized repossession agency has seized the vehicle when the Petitioner was proceeding to Khetrajpur Railway Station. 4. Pursuant to registration of FIR, the vehicle has been seized from Puspa Nath Stock Yard, Sambalpur. It is also stated in the instructions that with ulterior motive, the Petitioner had lodged the report allegedly Robbery falsely to get relief from the pending EMI, if any, regarding purchase of his vehicle. 5. As the Petitioner is in default of the EMIs, the I.O. has asked the complainant/ Petitioner as well as the Finance Company to take steps for release of the vehicle from the concerned Court. 6. In view of the fact that the Petitioner has not disclosed that the vehicle had been purchased on finance by the Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. either in in the FIR nor in the CRLMP which amounts to suppression of material fact, I am not puspa inclined to entertain the CRLMP and issue any direction. 7. The CRLMP is accordingly dismissed. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (Savitri Ratho) Judge