The Orissa High Court has expressed serious concern over what it termed a recurring pattern of local police failing to comply with judicial directions. Justice Savitri Ratho directed the Director General of Police (DGP) Y B Khurania to ensure that officers in-charge of police stations promptly act on orders issued by magistrates and other judicial officers.
Matter of Serious Concern
Justice Ratho observed that failure to respond to judicial directions results in repeated adjournments in subordinate courts and forces litigants to approach the high court seeking implementation of orders. The court called the issue a 'matter of serious concern'.
Directions to Police Authorities
The judge directed the DGP to instruct superintendents of police, commissioners, and inspectors in-charge across the state to respond to and comply with judicial orders promptly. This aims to prevent aggrieved litigants from flooding the high court with petitions alleging police inaction.
Background of the Case
The direction came on June 12 while disposing of a petition filed by a 65-year-old woman from Nayagarh district. She alleged she was cheated of Rs 2.10 lakh by individuals who promised to sell her land through a registered sale deed but neither executed the document nor returned the money.
The court of judicial magistrate first class, Ranpur, on August 6 last year directed the local police to register an FIR and investigate. Despite repeated reminders from the trial court, no action followed for over eight months, compelling her to move the high court.
Police Explanation
During the hearing, the state informed the high court that a case was registered at Ranpur police station on April 24 this year and investigation was in progress. Although the FIR registration largely resolved the grievance, Justice Ratho examined why the magistrate's order remained unimplemented for so long.
In an affidavit, the inspector in-charge of Ranpur police station stated that the court order received on August 6, 2025, had been misplaced. The officer tendered an unconditional apology and assured the court that such lapses would not recur.
Wider Problem
Justice Ratho observed that the explanation reflected a wider problem, adding, "It is possible for files and orders to be misplaced, but unfortunately, this is not a stray case." She noted that the high court frequently encounters petitions alleging non-compliance with orders passed by magistrates and family courts.
Referring to explanations often furnished by police officers, the judge said, "The stock excuse of the IICs in such cases is that the file/order got misplaced and in a few cases that the incumbent joined recently." Rejecting such reasons and noting that police stations maintain separate registers for court communications, Justice Ratho said, "Such excuses are not acceptable."
