Suchitra Kanungo v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMP No.2245 of 2022 Suchitra Kanungo ....

Petitioner Mr. Byomakesh Tripathy, Adv.

-versusState of Odisha & Ors.

....

Opposite Parties Mr. S.N. Das, ASC

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No.

ORDER

23.11.2022 1.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

3. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the grievance of the Petitioner in this case is that the Petitioner had filed a complaint on 02.10.2022 under Annexure-1 before the Opposite Party No.3/ I.I.C., Mahila Police Station, Bhubaneswar, District- Khurdha for registration. Owing to the fact that no action was taken by the said Opposite Party, the Petitioner then filed a grievance petition before the Opposite Party No.2/ Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bhuabneswar, DistrictKhurdha under Annexure-2 on 25.10.2022. However, till

// 2 // date the F.I.R. has not been registered. On being aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this petition seeking necessary direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to take a decision on the above noted complaint within a specific time period.

4. It has been well established by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari -vrs.- Govt. of U.P. & Others1 that a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. Additionally, the Supreme Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.2, that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is pertinent to be clarified that the jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked for registration of FIR in cases 1AIR 2014 SC 187 2(2008) 2 SCC 409

// 3 // where an effective remedy lies under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Considering the submissions made, cases cited hereinabove and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3/ I.I.C., Mahila Police Station, Bhubaneswar, DistrictKhurdha to take a decision on the complaint in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if in the meantime, the same has not been disposed of. Non-compliance of this order shall make the concerned officer liable of committing an offence under Section 166 of I.P.C. and also contempt of the order of the High Court.

7. Accordingly, this CRLMP is disposed of.

8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

.

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge B.Jhankar