'Judicial Orders Not Being Given Importance': Orissa High Court Raps Police Over 8-Month Delay In FIR Registration Despite Magistrate's Order

Dismissing the explanation furnished by the concerned Inspector-In-Charge (IIC), the Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho observed–

“It is possible for files and orders to be misplaced. But unfortunately, this is not a stray case. I have dealt with several writ applications (CRLMPs) where the grievance of the petitioner is that the orders passed or directions issued by the Magistrates or Judges of the Family Court are not being complied by the local police, in spite of several adjournments and reminders. The stock excuse of the IICs in such cases is that the file/ order/NBW got misplaced and in a few cases that the incumbent joined recently.”

A 65-year-old lady belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) community was allegedly duped of Rs. 2,10,000/- by the accused persons on the false pretext of executing the sale of their landed property in favour of the victim/petitioner through a registered sale deed. Such registration was scheduled before the Sub-Registrar, Ranpur, Nayagarh on 17.05.2025. The accused persons neither appeared for registration nor refunded the amount despite repeated requests.

The petitioner filed a complaint case before the JMFC, Ranpur. Upon perusing her complaint petition, the Magistrate called for a report from the jurisdictional IIC. However, no such report was produced even after passage of multiple dates. Ultimately, the JMFC passed a reasoned order under Section 175(3) of the BNSS (akin to Section 156(3) of the CrPC) on 06.08.2025 directing the IIC, Ranpur Police Station to register an FIR and investigate the matter. Unfortunately, no compliance report was ever received from the IIC.

Having no other recourse, the petitioner filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (CRLMP) praying for issuance of direction to the IIC, Ranpur to register the FIR in compliance with the order of the JMFC, Ranpur. She further prayed for initiation of departmental action against the erring police officials for wilful and brazen violation of judicial order.

When the matter came up for hearing, the State Counsel produced an instruction dated 25.04.2026 received from the IIC, Ranpur Police Station. In that report, the IIC apprised that an FIR under Sections 316(2)(criminal breach of trust)/318(2) (cheating)/318(3)(cheating with knowledge of wrongful loss)/318(4)(cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property)/3(5)(common intention) of the BNS was registered on 24.04.2026 and the case is under investigation.

Though the said instruction would have ideally rendered the petition infructuous, the Court however asked the IIC to file an affidavit indicating the reasons for such inordinate and long delay in registration of FIR. The IIC was also directed to depose whether the order of the JMFC asking for registration of FIR was received.

The IIC filed an affidavit before the Court deposing that even though the order of the JMFC was received, the same was “misplaced somewhere at the police station”.

Justice Ratho noted that though the JMFC passed order on 06.08.2025 directing the registration of FIR, it was registered only on 24.04.2026, i.e. just one day before the submission of instruction to the Government Counsel in the CRLMP. The Judge was dissatisfied with the “stock excuse” of police regarding misplacing of order.

“Such excuses are not acceptable as different registers are maintained in the police station in respect of letters/orders/NBWs received from different authorities/courts…. It is therefore a matter of serious concern that judicial orders and directions are not being given any importance by the local Police,” she added.

Notably, in a similar case [Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack v. Manoranjan Kumbhar, IIC, Bisra Police Station, Rourkela, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 56], the Court was constrained to direct the Director General of Police (DGP) to pass necessary instructions to the Superintendents of Police (SPs) all across the State to ensure strict and timely compliance of judicial orders passed by the District Judiciary. In the light of said direction, the Court hoped that the DGP shall take necessary steps.

Case Title: Smt. Subasini Dei v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No: CRLMP No. 535 of 2026

Date of Order: June 12, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Umakant Sahoo, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout, Addl. Standing Counsel

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 57