TAPAN KUMAR BEHERA SATYAJIT MOHAPATRA, K.MOHANTY, A.PRADHAN, K.SETHI vs STATE OF ODISHA — CRLMP/296/2026
Case under Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 31st March 2026.
CNR: ODHC010143292026
Filing Number
CRLMP/6052/2026
Filing Date
23-Feb-2026
Registration No
CRLMP/296/2026
Registration Date
27-Feb-2026
Judge
Miss Justice Savitri Ratho
Coram
Miss Justice Savitri Ratho
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 9 )
Sub-Category
ANY OTHER MATTER UNDER CR.P.C. ( 21 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
31-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 09-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.TAPAN KUMAR BEHERA SATYAJIT MOHAPATRA, K.MOHANTY, A.PRADHAN, K.SETHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF ODISHA
-
2.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ODISHA,CUTTACK
-
3.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANGUL
-
4.INSPECTOR-IN-CHARGE, TALCHER POLICE STATION,ANGUL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
31-Mar-2026
Miss Justice Savitri RathoView PDF
The High Court of Orissa dismissed the Criminal Revision (CRLMP) filed by Tapan Kumar Behera, who sought directions to register an FIR and conduct a fair inquiry against accused persons. The petitioner's counsel informed the court that the petitioner no longer wished to proceed with the case and requested withdrawal, which the court granted. The police had also submitted that neither the petitioner nor the accused parties visited the police station on the alleged date, making confrontation impossible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
31-Mar-2026
Fresh Admission 1
Miss Justice Savitri Ratho
-
24-Mar-2026
Miss Justice Savitri RathoView PDF
-
24-Mar-2026
Fresh Admission
Miss Justice Savitri Ratho
-
12-Mar-2026
Miss Justice Savitri RathoView PDF
-
12-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRLMP/296/2026
The High Court of Orissa dismissed the Criminal Revision (CRLMP) filed by Tapan Kumar Behera, who sought directions to register an FIR and conduct a fair inquiry against accused persons. The petitioner's counsel informed the court that the petitioner no longer wished to proceed with the case and requested withdrawal, which the court granted. The police had also submitted that neither the petitioner nor the accused parties visited the police station on the alleged date, making confrontation impossible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts