Orissa HC Flags Systemic Police Disregard for Magistrate Orders After Eight-Month FIR Delay

Orissa High Court disposed of a mandamus petition by a 65-year-old Scheduled Caste woman after police registered an FIR eight months late, citing a misplaced order — and directed the Director General of Police to issue corrective instructions across the State.

The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Smt. Subasini Dei, a 65-year-old woman from a Scheduled Caste community, after the Ranapur Police Station finally registered an FIR on 24 April 2026 — more than eight months after a Judicial Magistrate First Class had directed it to do so on 6 August 2025. Miss Justice Savitri Ratho, sitting singly, found the police station's explanation — that the Magistrate's order had been “misplaced somewhere at the Police Station” — unacceptable, and used the occasion to address what she described as a pattern of police indifference to judicial directions across the State. The judgment was delivered on 12 June 2026.

The Cheating Complaint and the Magistrate's Direction

The petitioner alleged that accused persons dishonestly induced her to part with Rs. 2,10,000 on the false pretext of executing a registered sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, Ranapur on 17 May 2025. The accused failed to appear for execution and neither completed the sale deed nor refunded the amount despite repeated requests.

Smt. Subasini Dei filed ICC Case No. 14 of 2025 before the learned JMFC, Ranapur. On 14 July 2025, the JMFC called for a report from the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC), Ranapur Police Station, by 22 July 2025. The matter was listed on 22 July, 29 July, and 6 August 2025. No report arrived from the police station on any of those dates.

On 6 August 2025, the JMFC passed a reasoned order directing the IIC to register an FIR and investigate the matter in accordance with law — a direction under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate also directed the IIC to submit a compliance report by 18 August 2025.

The case was thereafter listed on 18 August 2025, 17 September 2025, 11 November 2025, and 12 January 2026. No compliance was received on any of those dates either. Left with no alternative, Smt. Subasini Dei approached the High Court by filing CRLMP No. 535 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the IIC to register the FIR and conduct investigation, a compliance report, and departmental and legal action against the erring officer for wilful disobedience of judicial orders and violation of the law laid down in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1.

The FIR Registered Only After the High Court Petition Was Filed

When the matter came up before the High Court, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout, produced instructions dated 25 April 2026 from the IIC, Ranapur Police Station. Those instructions disclosed that Ranapur P.S. Case No. 117 dated 24 April 2026 had been registered under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and that Sub-Inspector Hasina Pradhan was investigating the case.

The registration of the case rendered the CRLMP virtually infructuous. However, the Court did not close the matter there. Miss Justice Ratho directed the IIC, Ranapur Police Station to file an affidavit explaining whether the JMFC's orders had been received and the reasons for the long delay in compliance.

The Affidavit: A Misplaced Order

Pursuant to the Court's order dated 5 May 2026, the IIC, Ranapur Police Station filed an affidavit. The affidavit acknowledged that ICC Case No. 14 of 2025 was received at the police station on 6 August 2025 — the very day the JMFC passed the direction to register the FIR. The IIC stated that the order was “misplaced somewhere at the Police Station” and that the delay was “neither intentional nor deliberate.” The affidavit tendered a “conditional apology” and an undertaking to remain sincere in future compliance.

Miss Justice Ratho found this explanation inadequate. The order-sheet of ICC Case No. 14 of 2025 showed that the JMFC had called for reports on four separate dates before passing the direction on 6 August 2025, and that the case had suffered repeated adjournments thereafter because the police station never responded. The FIR was ultimately registered on 24 April 2026 — more than eight months after the Magistrate's direction and only after the High Court petition was filed.

A Pattern, Not an Isolated Lapse

The Court did not treat the Ranapur Police Station's conduct as an isolated failure. Miss Justice Ratho observed that she had dealt with several writ applications where petitioners complained that orders passed by Magistrates or Judges of the Family Court were not being complied with by local police, despite multiple adjournments and reminders. She noted that the stock excuse offered by IICs in such cases is that the file, order, or non-bailable warrant was misplaced, or that the incumbent had joined recently.

The Court rejected such excuses as unacceptable, pointing out that police stations maintain separate registers for letters, orders, and warrants received from different authorities and courts. The systemic nature of the problem, the Court held, made it a matter of serious concern that judicial orders and directions were not being given any importance by local police.

Miss Justice Ratho drew on a judgment delivered the same day in CONTC No. 2824 of 2026, a contempt case where notice had been issued to an IIC for denying receipt of a non-bailable warrant sent by a Magistrate. That judgment had observed that the High Court is not the executing court for orders passed by Magistrates or District Judges, but that the inaction of local police in complying with or even responding to such orders causes cases to be unnecessarily adjourned and floods the High Court with petitions from aggrieved persons. It had further noted that criminal courts and Family Court Judges do not issue non-bailable warrants routinely — they are issued in cases involving serious allegations or where there is apprehension of evasion — and that the failure of police to report even an inability to execute a warrant prevents the court from taking further steps such as proclamation or attachment.

That judgment in CONTC No. 2824 of 2026 had directed the Director General of Police, Odisha to ensure that Superintendents of Police and Commissioners instruct IICs under their jurisdiction to respond to and carry out the orders and directions of Magistrates and other judicial officers.

Outcome

Miss Justice Ratho disposed of CRLMP No. 535 of 2026, expressing the expectation that the Director General of Police, Odisha would issue necessary instructions and directions to officers to respond to and comply with judicial orders and directions, in view of the directions already issued in CONTC No. 2824 of 2026.

The Court directed the Registry to communicate a copy of the judgment to the Director General of Police, Odisha forthwith.