Introduction:
In a significant judgment addressing police accountability and the enforcement of judicial orders, the Orissa High Court strongly criticized the casual and indifferent approach adopted by local police authorities in complying with a Magistrate’s direction to register a First Information Report (FIR). The Court expressed serious concern over the growing tendency of police officials to disregard judicial directions and subsequently justify such non-compliance through routine explanations such as misplacement of files or administrative oversight.
The decision was delivered by Justice Savitri Ratho in the case of Smt. Subasini Dei v. State of Odisha & Others (CRLMP No. 535 of 2026). The matter arose from a complaint filed by an elderly woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste community who alleged that she had been cheated of ₹2,10,000 by persons who falsely promised to sell their landed property to her through a registered sale deed. Despite receiving the money, the accused allegedly failed to execute the sale deed and also refused to return the amount.
The case highlights the difficulties faced by ordinary citizens, particularly vulnerable sections of society, when law enforcement authorities fail to act even after clear judicial directions. It also raises broader concerns regarding the implementation of orders passed by subordinate courts and the duty of police officials to ensure timely compliance with such directions.
According to the facts placed before the Court, the petitioner, a sixty-five-year-old woman, had entered into a proposed transaction involving the purchase of land from the accused persons. The registration of the sale deed was scheduled before the Sub-Registrar at Ranpur, Nayagarh, on 17 May 2025. However, the accused persons allegedly failed to appear before the registration authority and subsequently refused to return the amount already paid by the petitioner.
Faced with what she believed to be a deliberate act of cheating and financial exploitation, the petitioner approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ranpur, by filing a complaint case. The Magistrate initially sought a report from the Inspector-In-Charge (IIC) of the concerned police station. Despite repeated opportunities and several adjournments, no report was submitted by the police authorities.
Finding no cooperation from the police, the JMFC eventually passed a detailed and reasoned order on 6 August 2025 under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a provision corresponding to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Through this order, the Magistrate directed the police to register an FIR and conduct an investigation into the allegations.
Remarkably, despite the judicial direction, no FIR was registered for nearly eight months. The petitioner was therefore compelled to approach the Orissa High Court seeking enforcement of the Magistrate’s order and requesting action against the police officials responsible for its non-compliance.
The case thus presented the High Court with an opportunity to examine not only the rights of the victim but also the larger issue of police accountability in relation to judicial orders passed by courts exercising criminal jurisdiction.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that despite obtaining a lawful and reasoned order from the JMFC directing registration of an FIR, the police authorities had completely failed to comply with the judicial direction. It was submitted that the accused persons had dishonestly induced her to part with a substantial amount of money by falsely promising to transfer ownership of their property through a registered sale deed.
According to the petitioner, after receiving the amount, the accused persons neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the money. Their conduct clearly disclosed the commission of cognizable offences warranting criminal investigation.
The petitioner further contended that after she approached the Magistrate, the court had exercised its powers under Section 175(3) of the BNSS and directed the police to register a case. However, even this judicial order failed to evoke any response from the concerned police station. Such conduct, according to her, amounted to wilful disregard of judicial authority and demonstrated complete insensitivity towards the rights of a victim seeking legal redress.
The petitioner argued that the failure to register the FIR for several months deprived her of access to justice and delayed the investigative process. She submitted that the conduct of the police officials reflected not merely negligence but a conscious disregard of a binding judicial order.
On these grounds, she sought directions from the High Court for immediate compliance with the Magistrate’s order and initiation of departmental proceedings against the erring police officials responsible for the delay.
The State, represented through the Additional Standing Counsel, informed the Court that an FIR had eventually been registered on 24 April 2026 under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with criminal breach of trust, cheating, dishonest inducement, and common intention.
The State submitted that the case was presently under investigation and that necessary legal steps were being taken. Ordinarily, this development would have rendered the writ petition infructuous because the primary relief sought by the petitioner had already been granted.
However, the Court was not satisfied merely because the FIR had finally been registered. The focus shifted to understanding why there had been an extraordinary delay of approximately eight months despite a clear judicial direction.
Pursuant to the Court’s order, the concerned IIC filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. In the affidavit, the officer acknowledged that the Magistrate’s order had indeed been received by the police station. However, it was claimed that the order had been misplaced somewhere within the police station, resulting in the failure to register the FIR earlier.
The State relied upon this explanation and submitted that there was no deliberate intention to disobey the judicial order. Rather, the delay was attributed to administrative lapses and the inadvertent misplacement of records.
The explanation, however, became the focal point of judicial scrutiny as the Court proceeded to examine whether such a justification could be accepted in the circumstances of the case.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Savitri Ratho delivered a strongly worded judgment expressing dissatisfaction with the explanation furnished by the police authorities and emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with judicial orders.
At the outset, the Court noted the chronology of events. The JMFC had passed the order directing registration of an FIR on 6 August 2025. Yet the FIR came to be registered only on 24 April 2026. Significantly, this registration occurred merely one day before instructions were furnished to the Government Counsel in connection with the proceedings pending before the High Court.
The Court observed that such a sequence of events naturally raised serious concerns regarding the conduct of the police authorities. Had the petitioner not approached the High Court, there was every possibility that the Magistrate’s order would have remained unimplemented indefinitely.
The Court carefully examined the affidavit filed by the IIC and found the explanation wholly unsatisfactory. Justice Ratho acknowledged that in any administrative system, it is theoretically possible for documents to be misplaced. However, she made it clear that such incidents cannot become a routine excuse for failure to comply with judicial directions.
The Court observed that this was not an isolated instance. Justice Ratho remarked that she had dealt with numerous cases where litigants approached the High Court complaining that orders passed by Magistrates and Family Courts were not being implemented by local police authorities. In many of those cases, similar explanations had been offered, including claims that files, warrants, or court orders had been misplaced or that the concerned officer had recently assumed charge.
The Court described these recurring explanations as “stock excuses” and expressed concern that they reflected a deeper institutional problem rather than isolated administrative errors.
A significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s emphasis on the sanctity of judicial orders. Justice Ratho observed that orders passed by courts are not mere suggestions or recommendations. They are binding directions which must be complied with promptly and faithfully.
The Court noted that police stations maintain various registers and records relating to correspondence received from courts and governmental authorities. Such systems exist precisely to ensure that judicial directions are tracked and implemented. Therefore, the claim that a judicial order was simply misplaced could not justify prolonged inaction extending over several months.
The judgment highlighted that failure to comply with court orders undermines the rule of law and weakens public confidence in the justice delivery system. Citizens approach courts with the expectation that judicial directions will be respected and enforced. When court orders are ignored, the authority of the judiciary itself is affected.
Justice Ratho further observed that the petitioner belonged to a vulnerable section of society. She was an elderly woman from the Scheduled Caste community who had allegedly been deprived of her hard-earned money through fraudulent conduct. The prolonged delay in initiating criminal proceedings effectively denied her timely access to justice.
The Court emphasized that criminal investigations often depend upon prompt action. Delays in registration of FIRs can adversely affect the collection of evidence, examination of witnesses, and overall effectiveness of the investigation. Consequently, compliance with judicial directions relating to registration of criminal cases assumes even greater significance.
The Court also referred to its recent decision in Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack v. Manoranjan Kumbhar, IIC, Bisra Police Station, Rourkela reported in 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 56. In that matter, similar concerns regarding non-compliance with judicial orders had prompted the Court to direct the Director General of Police (DGP) to issue appropriate instructions to all Superintendents of Police across the State.
The purpose of those directions was to ensure strict adherence to judicial orders and to prevent recurrence of situations where police authorities failed to act despite clear directions from courts.
Drawing support from the earlier decision, Justice Ratho expressed hope that the DGP would take meaningful steps to strengthen institutional mechanisms and ensure accountability at all levels of the police administration.
Although the FIR had ultimately been registered and the investigation had commenced, the Court made it clear that the delay could not be casually overlooked. The judgment serves as a reminder that compliance with judicial orders is an essential component of constitutional governance and cannot be left to administrative convenience.
The Court’s observations underscore the principle that the effectiveness of the criminal justice system depends not merely on the issuance of judicial directions but also on their faithful execution by law enforcement agencies. A judicial order loses its practical value if the authorities entrusted with its implementation fail to act in a timely manner.
Ultimately, while the Court took note of the registration of the FIR and the commencement of investigation, it strongly criticized the conduct of the police authorities and highlighted the urgent need for systemic reforms to prevent such instances of non-compliance. The judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation of judicial authority and a warning that bureaucratic excuses cannot be allowed to defeat the administration of justice.
The decision also sends a broader message that vulnerable citizens should not be compelled to repeatedly approach higher courts merely to secure implementation of orders already passed in their favour. The rule of law demands that judicial directions be treated with seriousness, respect, and prompt compliance by all authorities entrusted with their execution.