DIPTIMAYEE BARIK v. STATE OF ODISHA
Court: High Court of Orissa
Bench: MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Orissa judgment dated 2026-04-09. DIPTIMAYEE BARIK v. STATE OF ODISHA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 1353 of 2025 Diptimayee Barik …. Petitioner Mr. Biswa Kumar Mishra, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Orissa, represented through its Secretary, Home Department, Bhubaneswar 2. The A. C. P. , Cuttack 3. The Inspector in-charge, Mangalabag Police Station 4. The Officer in-charge, Mangalabag Police Station …. Opp. Parties Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 09. 04. 2026 (Through hybrid Mode) 10. 1. This CRLMP has been filed for directing the Opposite Parties to include the proper offences which have allegedly being committed by the Doctors of Janance Hospital at Ranihat, Cuttack and also for investigation of the matter by independent body like CBI/ Crime Branch alleging that proper investigation is not being carried out by the officials of Mangalabag Police Station, Cuttack UPD. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 07. 04. 2026, Additional I. I. C.
, Mangalabag Police Station, Smt. Rasmita Naik is present in person in Court today along with the up-to-date case diary. 3. The case diary also contains that the report dated 07. 04. 2026 of the SFSL, Bhubaneswar regarding the specimen signature and documents sent to them. The contents of the report are extracted below:- “i) The person who wrote the red enclosed specimen signatures which I have stamped & marked as A-1 to A-36 and the admitted signatures whose photocopies have been stamped & marked by me as A-37 & A-38, did not write the disputed signatures whose photocopies have been stamped & marked by me as X-1 & X-2. (ii) The person who wrote the red enclosed specimen signatures which I have stamped & marked as B-1 to B-36 and the admitted signatures whose photocopies have been stamped & marked by me as B-37 & B-38, also wrote the disputed signatures whose photocopies have been stamped & marked by me as X-3 & X-4.
[The above opinions are valid subject to the condition that the disputed photocopy signatures marked. ” 4. It also appears that on 08. 04. 2026, the deponent had been to Mahanga and has recorded the statement of the Petitioner who was present in the village and her husband over his mobile number as he was present in his place of duty in Jammu. Perused the statements of these witnesses. 5. Perusal of the case diary reveals that she has corrected the date when she took over charge which she had been mentioned incorrectly as she had signed in a hurry. 6. In view of the developments, I am satisfied that it is not necessary at present to issue any direction for transferring the investigation of Mangalabag P. S. Case No. 209 of 2025 to the CBI or Crime Branch. It is expected that the I. O.
in this case will conduct the investigation in a fair and impartial manner and expeditiously and will file the final form under the relevant offences after taking into consideration the materials on record. 7. With this observation, the CRLMP is disposed of. 8. The personal appearance of Additional I. I. C. , Mangalabag Police Station, Smt. Rasmita Naik is dispensed with. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. 10. The copy of the case diary be returned to the learned State Counsel. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Sukanta
Source: High Court of Orissa. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.