S. 175(3) BNSS | Mandatory For Magistrate To Hear Police Officer On Refusal To Register FIR Before Passing Order For Investigation: Orissa HCCase Title: Swarnalata Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 19The Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held that before passing order for investigation, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to hear the submissions of the...
Case Title: Swarnalata Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 19
The Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held that before passing order for investigation, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to hear the submissions of the police officer upon his refusal to register First Information Report (FIR), apart from considering the application supported by an affidavit made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police and making proper inquiry.
Case Title: Tathagata Satapathy v. HDFC Bank Ltd., Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 33
The Orissa High Court dismissed a plea made by former Member of Parliament (MP) Tathagata Satapathy challenging the requirement of mandatory linking of Aadhaar to Permanent Account Number (PAN) for the purpose of operating dematerialized accounts ('demat accounts'). While holding the aforesaid requirement to be constitutional and a reasonable restriction on 'right to privacy', the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed –
“The mandatory linking of Aadhaar with PAN and Demat accounts under Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act aligns with the constitutional principles laid down in Puttaswamy and its triple test: legality, necessity, and proportionality. Section 139AA satisfies this test as it is backed by a valid legislative mandate, serves a legitimate state interest, and imposes only a proportionate restriction on privacy.”
Case Title: Priyadarshini Amrita Panda v. Biswajit Pati
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 35
The Orissa High Court held that it is not mandatory on the part of Court to hold a preliminary inquiry as provided under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) into commission of offences referred to in Section 215, BNSS in order to make or reject to make complaint. While clarifying the procedural provision, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“…it appears that Sec. 379 of BNSS does not mandate a preliminary enquiry, so also such a course may not be required to be adopted in every cases. However, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offence referred to in Sec. 215(1)(b) of the BNSS.”
Case Title: Nirmal Karnakar v. Parbati @ Parbati Karnakar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 39
The Orissa High Court ruled that a competent Court, considering facts and circumstances of the case as well as to provide just and fair means, can grant maintenance to wife exceeding the amount which she claimed in her application under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act'). Clarifying the disputed question concerning jurisdiction of Courts to grant enhanced maintenance, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed that the judicial discretion must be exercised to provide a fair and just maintenance amount, considering the dependent's actual needs and the payer's financial capability, even if the claim was initially understated.
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Sahu & Anr. v. The State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 47
The Orissa High Court reiterated that probate of Wills executed in ex-princely states/Gadajat states is not necessary and thus, the revenue authorities can proceed for mutation on the basis of un-probated Wills in such areas. A Single Bench of Justice Ananda Chandra Behera referred to a number of precedents on the above position of law and clarified that –
“If the Wills are executed in a place either outside the areas specified in the clauses of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or in respect of the immovable properties situated beyond the territories specified in clauses of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, those areas/territories were under the ex-princely State called as Gadajat Wills, probate of such Wills are not required under law.”
Case Title: Smt. Sandhya Rani Sahoo @ Mohanty v. Smt. Anusaya Mohanty
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 61
The Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that children born out of second/void marriage are also entitled to inherit not only the self-acquired but also the ancestral properties of their father since Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('HMA') confers legitimacy on children born out of void marriage and the Hindu Successions Act, 1956 ('HSA') gives right to legitimised children to inherit self-acquired properties of parents as Class-I heirs.
Case Title: Debabrata Debadarsan Palei v. Subhakanti Patra & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 63
The Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that since Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the HMA') bars presentation of petition for divorce within one year of marriage, the petitioner must file a separate application canvassing 'exceptional hardship' or 'exceptional depravity' by the respondent, in order to waive the mandatory waiting period of one year as per the proviso to Section 14(1).
Case Title: Kumarpur Sasan Juba Gosti Kendra & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 82
In a strong judicial retaliation against unlawful 'bulldozer action', the Orissa High Court ordered the State to pay rupees ten lakhs compensation, out of which rupees two lakhs are to be recovered from the salary of the concerned Tahasildar, for illegally demolishing a structure belonging to a community centre. Reprimanding the executive excess in clear derogation of judicial orders, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi gave flea in the ear of the Tahasildar through the following observation –
“This Court takes serious note of the conduct of the Tahasildar, whose actions in this case reflect a steady and conscious departure from the standards expected of a responsible public officer. When judicial directions were first issued, there was an opportunity to act with restraint and deference to the process of law… It was a deliberate act taken while judicial consideration was still underway.”
Denying Maternity Benefits To Contractual Employee 'Abhorrent' To Womanhood: Orissa High Court
Case Title: State of Odisha & Anr. v. Smt. Anindita Mishra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 84
The Orissa High Court held that a woman employee cannot be denied maternity leave/benefits merely on the basis of nature of her appointment being contractual. It was stressed that any such denial shall be 'abhorrent' to the very notions of humanity and womanhood. While dismissing a writ appeal against the judgment of a Single Bench, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo further observed –
“Denying maternity benefit on the basis of nature of employment is abhorrent to the notions of humanity and womanhood. Our Smrutikaaraas chanted “yatr naaryaastu pujyante ramante tatr devatah”, literally meaning that Gods rejoice where women are honoured. Such ideal things should animate the purposive interpretation of State Policy concerning the welfare of women.”
Case Title: Bidyabharati Panda v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 87
The Orissa High Court held that a Magistrate, even after taking cognizance for certain offences on the basis of charge-sheet filed by investigating agency, is not barred from taking cognizance again for some other serious offences, if prima facie case is established by means of sufficient materials. Clarifying the position of law regarding validity of a second cognizance, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held –
“...the law is well-settled that a Magistrate is not precluded from taking cognizance on a complaint even after accepting a final report, provided there is prima facie material to support the allegations. The Supreme Court's pronouncement in Zunaid v. State of U.P. (supra) clearly establishes this principle, and the mere fact that an earlier cognizance was taken under different sections does not automatically bar subsequent cognizance under more serious provisions if supported by material.”
Case Title: Jayanta Kumar Das v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 112
In an important ruling, the Orissa High Court clarified that the Crime Investigation Department, Crime Branch (Cyber Crime) ('CID-CB') is not the only investigating body empowered to probe cyber/IT related offences, rather the local police stations can also investigate such offences subject to the condition that the Investigating Officer (IO) is not below the rank of 'Inspector'. Interpreting the interplay between multiples government notifications alongside Section 78 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ('the IT Act'), which provides that a police officer not below the rank of Inspector shall investigate any offence under the Act, the single bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash held –
“The statutory scheme, the Government Notifications of 2004, 2017 and 2021, and the clarifications from CID, CB Cyber P.S., all point towards a harmonious interpretation that while CID Cyber P.S. retains concurrent jurisdiction across the State, local police stations headed by Inspectors are not divested of competence to investigate cyber offences. The expression 'exclusive jurisdiction' in the 2017 Notification cannot be read so as to obliterate the concurrent jurisdiction expressly preserved in the same sentence, nor can it override the clear mandate of Section 78 of the I.T. Act.”
Case Title: Narottam Prusty v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 123
Filling a legislative gap concerning interplay of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ('BNSS') and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ('POCSO Act') regarding limitation period for filing a 'discharge application', the Orissa High Court held that an accused under the latter enactment can prefer an application seeking discharge under Section 250(1) of the BNSS within sixty days from the date on which he is furnished with the police papers, as provided under Section 231, BNSS. Addressing the issue, which arose due to the absence of a specific 'committal provision' under the POCSO Act, the Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra held –
“…this Court is persuaded to take the considerate view that in cases before Special Courts instituted under special statutes like the POCSO Act, as in the present matter, where there is no contemplation for committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the time period of 60 days for preferring a discharge application under Section 250(1) BNSS may be so interpreted as commencing from the date of supply of documents and police papers to the accused.”
Case Title: Syed Najam Ahmed v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 133
The Orissa High Court held that directors of a company cannot be absolved of their liability for the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 merely because the company was declared insolvent and a Resolution Professional was appointed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. While determining the extent of liability of directors of an insolvent company, the Bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash held–
“In view of the above position of law, there remains no ambiguity with respect to the principle propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely, that the matter lying before the Resolution Professional pursuant to the order dated 08.11.2024 of the NCLT would in no manner affect the proceedings arising out of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.”
Case Title: Sukanta Kumar Mohanty & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 141
The Orissa High Court held that a Court cannot take cognizance in the General Register case ('GR case') after accepting the closure report submitted by the police due to lack of evidence. It further clarified that if the informant files any 'protest petition' against acceptance of the final form, the same may be considered as a 'complaint' [as defined under Section 2(d) of the CrPC/ Section 2(h) of the BNSS] and fresh cognizance may be taken on the basis of that complaint case. While finding fault with a Magistrate's cognizance order in GR case while entertaining a protest petition, the Bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash shed light on the important procedural requirement in the following words –
“...the action of the learned Magistrate in adhering to the procedure under Sections 200 read with 202 Cr.P.C. while taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner in the G.R. case has to be discontinued, and the Protest Petition shall be treated as a complaint. The registration thereof be accordingly effected, and the entire exercise undertaken in the G.R. case in taking cognizance of the offences be made over to the said complaint case.”
Convict's Refusal To File Appeal Through Legal Aid Must Be Obtained In Writing: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Jatia Hembram v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 156
In order to ensure that no deserving/indigent convicted-prisoner is deprived of availing free legal aid to file appeal against conviction, the Orissa High Court gave an important directive to the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) across the State to obtain his/her (convict's) refusal to grant consent to file Jail Criminal Appeal (JCRLA) in writing. A Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra also ruled that even though convicted-prisoners cannot be compelled to prefer appeal, they must be given adequate guidance so as to make them aware of their statutory as well as constitutional right to challenge conviction by way of appeal and even through free legal aid in appropriate cases.
Case Title: Vicky Kumar @ Kashyap & Anr. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 158
In a vital clarification to the new procedure under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Orissa High Court made it clear that the State Amendment, which increased the time-limit for filing of charge-sheet from 90 days to 120 days under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), is repealed along with the CrPC. Therefore, charge-sheet now has to be filed within 90 days as provided under Section 187(3)(i) of the BNSS, failing which the accused shall be entitled to be released on 'default bail'. The Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra opined that the saving clause provided under Section 531 of the BNSS does not save the aforesaid State Amendment since it had become an essential part of the CrPC itself. In the words of the Judge –
“Thus, there is no doubt that by operation of Section 531(1), while the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed, the effect of the State Amendment including Odisha Act 11 of 1997 gets obliterated. What is in force now is the provision contained in Section 187 of the BNSS, 2023. Since Section 187(3)(i) provides 90 days for the category of offence involved in the present case, the charge-sheet in the present case should have been filed within 90 days.”
Case Title: Ranjan Kumar Tripathy & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 159
The Orissa High Court set aside a State Government order empowering Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of State Legislative Assembly (MLAs) to recommend inter-district and intra-district transfer of teachers bereft of any statutory scheme to that effect. A Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad stressed that unnecessary nexus between politicians and teachers can have a devastating effect on the society. In its words –
“Impugned letter of the kind, which provides for MPs/MLAs recommending transfer of teachers, has the potential of creating a seamless nexus between the political parties/ candidates and the community of teachers. This would not augur well to the system. One needs no research to visualize the fruits of poisonous tree that would grow on the soil of such nexus. It is teachers, more particularly those who teach up to the level of HSC/X Standard, who mould the younger generation as citizenry in the making. As of necessity, teachers have to maintain safe distance from political parties & elected representatives.”
Case Title: Rohit Anand Das & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 164
Addressing an important legal issue touching upon the right to privacy of students and guardians, the Orissa High Court asked the Union Ministry of Education (MoE) to amend the consent form, appended to 'Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry' (APAAR) portal, allowing the students and guardians to refuse consent for their enrolment in such ID. The Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra highlighted that enrolment in such portal was always held to be voluntary by the government and therefore, a clear option for 'opting out' must be given. The Judge further held –
“If it is intended to be a voluntary act, appropriate provisions clearly specifying such fact ought to have been incorporated in the form by providing option to the parents to refuse to submit their consent or to opt out of it entirely.”
Civil Court Can Order Police Assistance To Enforce Injunction Orders U/S 151 CPC: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Sayed Ekram Saha v. Haroon Khan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 168
The Orissa High Court held that even though the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) does not contain a specific provision enabling police assistance for enforcing and implementing an order of injunction, still a Civil Court can invoke the inherent power vested in it under Section 151 to order police assistance, if other express provisions are found inadequate to give effect to an injunction order. While setting aside the order of a Civil Court denying police assistance, the Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra ruled –
“True, the CPC does not specifically provide for police assistance for implementation of the order of the Court but the power under Section 151 of CPC is wide enough to be exercised for protection of the rights of the parties if the available provisions are found to be inadequate.”
Case Title: Kabita Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 170
The Orissa High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Odisha Legislative Assembly Members' Salary, Allowances and Pension (Amendment) Bill, 2025 ('the Bill') which is slated to hike the salary of the Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) by almost three times, making it the highest for the legislators in the entire country. Holding the challenge to the Bill to be premature, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed –
“Introduction of the Bill, 2025 is not an empty formality but conveys the Legislative Will or the intention of the makers of the law what they intended to enact and it would be complete by assent of the Governor or the President. Mere Legislative Will in pursuit of an enactment is not amenable to be assailed before the writ Court as it does not fulfil the definition of law or the legislation perceived in the provisions of the Constitution of India.”