Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Orissa High Court

Simarani Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 16 July, 2024

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         CRLMP No.1002 of 2024
       Simarani Sahoo                        ...            Petitioner
                                        Mr. A.K.Sarangi, Advocate
                             -versus-
       State of Odisha & others              ... Opposite Parties
                                             Mr. S.S.Pradhan, AGA

                                 CORAM:
                          JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                                ORDER(ORAL)

16.07.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. None appears for the petitioner at the time of call despite taking Passover.

3. Against the claim for non-registration of FIR by the IIC, Derabis Police Station, Kendrapara on 20.06.2024, the petitioner by way of this CRLMP has directly approached this Court in an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr.S.S.Pradhan, learned AGA submits that there is equivalent provision in Cr.P.C. which can be resorted to by the petitioner for registration of the FIR, but the petitioner having failed to resort to such provision as available to him in the Cr.P.C. has directly come before this Court and therefore, the present application should not be entertained.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the jurisdictional Magistrate for seeking remedy of her grievance, although there is provision available under law. In this regard this Court considers it apt to refer to the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; (2008) 2 SC 409, wherein the Apex Court at paragraph-27 has held as under:-

"27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC."

6. Admittedly, the petitioner had not resorted to any of the aforesaid provisions as indicated in the above decision by which her grievance could have been easily addressed to.

7. In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstance and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu(supra), this Court does not feel it proper to entertain the CRLMP and accordingly, the CRLMP stands dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law to redress her grievance.

(G. Satapathy) Judge kishore Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Jul-2024 10:08:13 Page 3 of 3