Orissa High Court
Bijay Laxmi Nayak vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) …. Opposite … on 17 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3815 of 2024
Along with
CRLMC No.1021 of 2024
(Petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for quashing of criminal proceeding in
connection with Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.4 of 2011
corresponding to T.R. Case No.33 of 2013 pending in the court of the
learned Special Judge Vigilance, Balasore)
Bijay Laxmi Nayak .... Petitioner(s)
(in CRLMC No.3815 of 2024)
Anil Kumar Tomar
(In CRLMC No.1021 of 2024)
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vig.) .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meru Sagar Samantaray, Adv.
Mr. Debasis Tripathy, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Niranjan Moharana,
S.C. for Vig. Deptt.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-23.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.04.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. Since the issues raised in both the above-mentioned CRLMCs involve
common questions of fact and law, those were heard analogously and
are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
convenience and effective adjudication, CRLMC No.3815 of 2024 is
treated as the lead case.
2. The Petitioner, in CRLMC No.3815 of 2024, has made a prayer to quash
the initiation of criminal proceeding against her in connection with
Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.4 of 2011 corresponding to T.R. Case
No.33 of 2013 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge
Vigilance, Balasore.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) One Nagendra Prasad Nayak, OPS, DSP, while serving as SDPO
Bonai in Rourkela Police District, was subjected to a simultaneous
Vigilance search and seizure operation at six locations on
28.12.2010, on the strength of search warrants issued by the
learned C.J.M., Balasore vide Misc. Case No.13 of 2010.
Consequent thereupon, Sri B.C. Sethi, DSP, Vigilance, Jajpur Unit
lodged an FIR in Balasore Vigilance Police Station on 04.02.2011,
which was registered as Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.4 of 2011
under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 109/420/120-B of the IPC. The
FIR was registered against four persons, namely, Sri Nagendra
Prasad Nayak (A-1), Ajit Patnaik, late Gobinda Chandra Nayak
(father of A-1), and Prasanta Kumar Nayak (brother of A-1). A
chargesheet (No.41 of 2012) was subsequently submitted on
29.09.2012 under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act,
1988 and Sections 109/420/467/468/409/120-B of the IPC, which
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
culminated in T.R. Case No.33 of 2013 in the court of the learned
Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore.
(ii) The investigation revealed that Sri Nagendra Prasad Nayak
(husband of the Petitioner in CRLMC No.3815 of 2024) had
accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of
income during the check period from 02.04.1982 to 28.12.2010.
The assets taken into consideration by the Vigilance officials
comprised both movable and immovable properties. The
immovable property was estimated at Rs.39,26,000/- and the
movable property at Rs.1,24,96,467/-, totalling Rs.1,53,66,467/-.
The disproportionate assets were calculated at 698%.
(iii) The Petitioner in CRLMC No.3815 of 2024, Smt. Bijay Laxmi
Nayak (arrayed as A-5), is the wife of A-1. She was not named in
the FIR. As per the chargesheet, on the date of search she was
present at her paternal house at Keonjhar and was found in
possession of gold and silver ornaments on her person valued at
approximately Rs.1,17,600/-, a plot of land admeasuring 0.08
decimals at Baniapat, Keonjhar with a building valued at
approximately Rs.15,02,609/-, cash of Rs.4,900/-, a bank balance of
Rs.5,356/- in SBI Bargarh Branch, and insurance premiums of
Rs.4,49,800/- in three Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance policies. The
total value of assets as disclosed in the chargesheet and the
objection filed by the Vigilance amounts to approximately
Rs.19,93,654/-. The only source of income attributed to her during
the check period was house rent amounting to Rs.2,88,000/-.
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
(iv) The Petitioner in CRLMC No.1021 of 2024, Sri Anil Kumar Tomar
(arrayed as A-7), is an acquaintance of the family of A-1. He was
neither named in the FIR nor were his premises searched, nor
was any seizure effected from him. The chargesheet alleges that
he was holding four trucks in benami for A-1, on the ground that
the Petitioner in CRLMC No.3815 of 2024 (A-5) was found using a
postpaid mobile phone registered in the name of A-7, whose bills
were being paid by A-7 regularly.
(v) Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have approached this Court by
way of the present CRLMCs. The Petitioner in CRLMC No.3815
of 2024 seeks quashing of the chargesheet and the criminal
proceeding. The Petitioner in CRLMC No.1021 of 2024 seeks
quashing of the chargesheet as well as the order dated 08.11.2023
rejecting the discharge application passed in T.R. Case No.33 of
2013 pending before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance),
Balasore.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly advanced twofold
submissions in support of their prayer for quashing: first, on the facts
on record; and second, on the legal propositions, for which reliance was
placed on several judicial precedents and authoritative
pronouncements of the Supreme Court:
I. Submissions on Facts:
(i) It was submitted that this is a case of false implication driven by
the personal animosity and grudge of the Investigating Officer
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55(IO) against A-1. The animosity dates back to an incident in 2006
wherein A-1 had chargesheeted the wife of the IO in a motor
accident case (C.S. No.19 dated 14.01.2009, Bolangir Sadar P.S.
Case No.267 of 2006). This ground was specifically raised before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.9122 of 2011 and was
not rebutted by the Opposite Party. A-1 had also represented to
the Director, Vigilance vide letters dated 03.11.2011 and
30.11.2011, requesting a change of IO and expressing
apprehension of prejudice and unfair investigation. These
representations were not heeded.
(ii) With respect to A-5 (the Petitioner in CRLMC No.3815 of 2024), it
was submitted that she was not named in the FIR. The ornaments
found on her person constitute her Stridhan, and the cash of
Rs.4,900/- was her domestic cash. She does not own any
immovable property. The plot mentioned at Col.12(43) of the
chargesheet, admeasuring 0.08 decimals, was purchased in 2001
for Rs.1,00,000/- and sold for the same consideration to her sister-
in-law, Smt. Pramila Malik, in 2002, on which Smt. Pramila Malik
has constructed her dwelling house and continues to own it to
date.
(iii) With respect to A-7 (the Petitioner in CRLMC No.1021 of 2024), it
was submitted that he was neither named in the FIR nor were his
premises searched, nor was any seizure made from him. A-7 is a
Transporter and owns several trucks. The four trucks mentioned
in the chargesheet under the column ‘Assets’ at Sl. Nos.21 to 24
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
(bearing R.C. Nos. OR-17D-6608, OR-17E-3608, OR-17A-6808, and
OR-17A-6708) were 100% financed vehicles being operated under
Hire-Purchase agreements with HDFC Bank and TATA Finance.
The IO neither obtained information from the RTO, Bargarh
regarding the registration details of these vehicles nor seized the
RC copies, and the same do not figure among the 186 documents
relied upon by the prosecution in the chargesheet under Col.12.
The IO also did not array the RTO, Bargarh or his staff as
prosecution witnesses among the 86 witnesses listed under
Col.15, although RTOs of Chandikhol, Keonjhar, and Bhadrak
were made prosecution witnesses for other vehicles.
(iv) It was further submitted that the chargesheet was signed on
29.09.2012 but was submitted before the jurisdictional Court only
on 24.06.2013, with no explanation for the delay of approximately
nine months. Additionally, the IO was found guilty of a fake trap
operation and the Odisha Human Rights Commission imposed a
fine of Rs.5,00,000/- upon him. He was unceremoniously
repatriated by the Vigilance Directorate and all his pensionary
benefits have been withheld.
II. Submissions on Legal Propositions:
5. It was contended that the investigation was tainted by the personal bias
and mala fide of the IO, and that the right to a free and fair
investigation is a facet of the fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on State of Bihar &
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55Anr. v. P.P. Sharma, IAS & Anr.1, wherein the Apex Court observed
that the investigating officer is the arm of the law and plays a pivotal
role in the dispensation of criminal justice; that it is never his business
to fabricate evidence to connect a suspect with the commission of
crime; and that an investigating officer who is not sensitive to
constitutional mandates may be prone to trample upon the personal
liberty of a person when actuated by mala fides.
6. Further reliance was placed on Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors.2,
wherein the Apex Court reiterated that the investigation into a criminal
offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which
may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that the
investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive; and
on Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)3, where it was held that the
criminal justice administration system places human rights and dignity
at a high pedestal, and the investigation should be judicious, fair,
transparent, and expeditious to ensure compliance with the basic rule
of law.
7. It was submitted that the chargesheet is liable to be quashed on the
ground of incompleteness and lack of evidence. The allegations against
A-7 are not supported by any listed document in the chargesheet. Had
the IO investigated the RTO, Bargarh and seized the Registration
Certificates of the listed vehicles, it would have been established that
the vehicles were Hire-Purchase vehicles and were 100% financed.
Similarly, though the IO alleged that A-5 was the owner of the land and
1
(1992) Supp (1) SCC 222
2
(2010) 12 SCC 254
3
(2010) 6 SCC 1
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
building mentioned in the chargesheet and had clandestine business
links with A-7, the chargesheet discloses no document in the list of 186
documents to support these allegations. Rather, it discloses the sale of
the land in 2002 vide a Registered Sale Deed executed by A-5 in favour
of Smt. Pramila Malik. Reliance was placed on Sharif Ahmed v. State of
U.P.4, wherein the Apex Court held that the nature and standard of
evidence elucidated in a chargesheet should prima facie show that an
offence is established if the material and evidence is proven, and the
chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence
sufficient to take cognizance and for the trial; and on K. Veeraswami v.
Union of India5, where it was held that the report under Section 173(2)
purports to be an opinion of the Investigating Officer that he has been
able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the accused.
8. It was urged that the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), while taking
cognizance and while considering the application for discharge, did not
apply his judicial mind to the chargesheet and the documents
submitted by the IO. There is no documentary evidence or any named
prosecution witness to substantiate the allegations regarding the
vehicles in the name of A-7 or his alleged business relations with A-5.
Reliance was placed on Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State of
Jharkhand6, wherein it was held that before framing of charge, the
court must apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record and
must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was
possible; and on Sharif Ahmed (supra), holding that under Sections 190
4
(2024) 14 SCC 122
5
(1991) 3 SCC 655
6
(2023) 11 SCC 636
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
and 204 CrPC, the Magistrate can take cognizance only upon forming
an independent prima facie opinion.
9. It was contended that the IO, by selectively omitting relevant evidence
and witnesses, has deprived the Petitioners of the benefit of Section 227
CrPC, which contemplates discharge on the basis of “the record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith.” The selective omission
of RTO records and RC copies has rendered the Petitioners unable to
canvass their innocence from the chargesheet materials alone. Reliance
was placed on Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar7, wherein the Apex
Court held that what is required is not a roving enquiry but a “simple
and necessary enquiry” for proper adjudication of a discharge
application, and that the court does not act as a mere post office but
must sift the material before it; on State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh
Kishorsinh Rao8, holding that if the accused is able to demonstrate
from the chargesheet material at the stage of framing charge something
that might drastically affect the sustainability of the case, it is unfair to
ignore such material; and on Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of U.P.9,
where the Apex Court emphasized that the strong suspicion necessary
to frame a charge should be based on material brought on record by the
prosecution and not on supposition, suspicion, and conjectures.
10. It was submitted that the invocation of Sections 109 and 120-B IPC
against the Petitioners is wholly unsustainable in the absence of any
material demonstrating a meeting of minds, a prior conspiracy, or any
overt act of intentional aid in the accumulation of disproportionate
7
(2022) 9 SCC 577
8
(2023) 17 SCC 688
9
(2024) 10 SCC 651
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
assets. Mere relationship with the principal accused or mere use of a
mobile phone cannot, by itself, constitute abetment or criminal
conspiracy. Reliance was placed on Ram Prakash Chadha (supra),
wherein the Supreme Court observed that apart from using the
expression “criminal conspiracy”, if there is an absolute absence of
anything in the final report or witness statements suggesting that the
accused conspired with others, the charge cannot be sustained; and on
P. Nallammal v. State rep. by Inspector of Police10, on the essential
ingredients of abetment under the P.C. Act.
11. It was contended that A-5 neither holds a public office nor a
Government post. The proceedings initiated against a private person
who does not hold any public office are liable to be dropped,
notwithstanding her proximity to her husband against whom
allegations of acquisition of disproportionate wealth have been made.
Reliance was placed on Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi &
Others11, wherein the Supreme Court, upon review, directed that the
investigation launched against Smt. Dimple Yadav on the issue of
amassing wealth beyond her known sources of income was liable to be
dropped, as she had neither held any public office nor a government
post and was essentially a private person.
12. It was urged that any asset under a Hire-Purchase agreement cannot be
considered the asset of the user until the Hire-Purchase agreement is
completed with full payment and credit clearance. The four trucks
alleged to be in the name of A-7 were 100% financed Hire-Purchase
10
(1999) 6 SCC 559.
11
(2013) 2 SCC 1
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
vehicles. Their ownership, in law, remained with the financing
institutions and not with A-7. Consequently, these vehicles could not
have been clubbed as assets in the chargesheet, and A-7 could not have
been legally arrayed as an accused on this basis. Reliance was placed
on Magma Fincorp Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari12, wherein the Apex
Court held that the financier continues to remain the owner of a vehicle
covered by a hire-purchase agreement until all hire instalments are
paid and the hirer exercises the option to purchase; and that the hirer
merely holds the goods in trust and/or as a bailee.
13. It was submitted that there has been an inordinate delay of over 14
years since the registration of the FIR in 2011, and over 12 years since
the filing of the chargesheet in 2012, with the charge yet to be framed.
Letting the trial continue against the Petitioners would be a futile
exercise, wasting the valuable time of the Court, and would inevitably
end in acquittal. This amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
14. It was contended that the present proceeding is manifestly vexatious,
loaded with mala fide, and intended to settle personal scores with A-1.
Reliance was placed on the illustrative categories enumerated in State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal13, particularly Categories (3), (5), and (7),
being cases where the uncontroverted allegations and evidence
collected do not disclose the commission of any offence; where the
allegations are so absurd that no prudent person can reach a conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding; and where a criminal
12
(2020) 10 SCC 399
13
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with
an ulterior motive.
15. Reliance was also placed on Iqbal v. State of U.P.14, holding that when
an accused invokes Section 482 CrPC on the ground that proceedings
are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with an ulterior
motive, the court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely, and to consider the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation of the case as well as materials collected during investigation;
on Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana15, wherein it was held that once
the investigation is over and chargesheet is filed, the FIR pales into
insignificance, and there is nothing in Section 482 CrPC which restricts
its exercise to the stage of the FIR alone, and that the third category in
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab16 covers cases where the allegations
constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence adduced or the
evidence manifestly fails to prove the charge; and on Kailashben
Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra17 and Maneesha
Yadav & Ors. v. State of U.P.18, both reiterating that there is no
prohibition against quashing of criminal proceedings even after the
chargesheet has been filed, and that it would be a travesty of justice to
hold that proceedings can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not
when they have materialized into a chargesheet.
16. It was further submitted that A-1, the principal accused public servant,
has been exonerated of all charges in the departmental proceedings by
14
(2023) 8 SCC 734
15
(2025) 3 SCC 756
16
AIR 1960 SC 866
17
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2621
18
2024 SCC OnLine SC 643
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
order dated 29.09.2021 of the Hon’ble Governor of Odisha.
Consequently, the very foundation of the prosecution against the
Petitioners, who are alleged to have abetted A-1, stands eroded.
17. In view of the above facts, circumstances, and legal propositions, it was
contended that this Court may allow the present CRLMCs and quash
the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners. Unless these
applications are allowed, the Petitioners shall continue to sustain
irreparable loss and injury.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/ VIGILANCE
DEPARTMENT:
18. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party/ Vigilance
Department by filing of written note of submissions earnestly made the
following submission in support of his submissions:
i. The petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold because,
once investigation has culminated in a charge-sheet and
cognizance has already been taken, the Court ought not to lightly
interdict the prosecution unless the case falls within the narrow
parameters governing quashing jurisdiction. Amit Kapoor v.
Ramesh Chander19, holds that quashing of charge is an exception
and the Court should be slow to stifle a legitimate prosecution at
the initial stage.
ii. At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the Court is only
required to see whether the materials produced by the
prosecution, taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case. It is
19
(2012) 9 SCC 460
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55not required to examine whether the evidence is sufficient for
conviction. That is the settled ratio in State of M.P. v. Mohanlal
Soni20, State through CBI v. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava21, and
iii. The Court, while considering discharge or quashing, cannot assume
the role of an appellate court and start weighing contradictions,
inconsistencies, or probable defences. That exercise belongs to trial.
This position stands reaffirmed in State rep. by Dy. Superintendent
of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tamil Nadu v. J.
Doraiswamy23, and CBI v. Aryan Singh24.
iv. A petition under Section 482 CrPC cannot be converted into a mini-
trial. The High Court is not expected to assess whether the
prosecution will ultimately succeed; it need only see whether
sufficient material exists to proceed. That is the clear principle in
v. It is equally well settled that the accused cannot rely upon defence
material, disputed factual explanations, or extraneous documents in
order to seek discharge at the threshold. The Court must confine
itself to the material produced by the prosecution. This is the ratio
of M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI26.
vi. A non-public servant can validly be prosecuted and tried for
abetment or conspiracy in relation to an offence under Section
20
(2000) 6 SCC 338
21
(2017) 15 SCC 560
22
(2019) 7 SCC 515
23
(2019) 4 SCC 149
24
(2023) 18 SCC 399
25
(2023) 18 SCC 399
26
(2020) 2 SCC 768
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This proposition was
settled in P. Nallammal v. State rep. by Inspector of Police27.
vii. The mere fact that a person is the spouse or family member of the
principal accused does not immunize such person from prosecution
where the prosecution case is that assets were held, concealed, or
facilitated in that person’s name. In P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi (supra),
the Supreme Court reiterated that even a non-public servant who
allows disproportionate assets to be parked in her name and
thereby assists the principal accused can be prosecuted for
abetment under Section 109 IPC read with the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
viii. Therefore, the plea that A-5 is a private person and not a public
servant is not, by itself, a ground for quashing. So long as the
prosecution alleges that she knowingly held or facilitated
possession of assets on behalf of the principal accused, the
prosecution is maintainable in law.
ix. The plea founded on exoneration of the principal accused in
departmental proceedings is also untenable. The law is settled that
exoneration in departmental proceedings does not ipso facto result
in quashing of criminal prosecution, since the two proceedings
operate in different fields, before different fora, and on different
standards of proof. This is the ratio in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay
Kumar Tyagi28.
27
(1999) 6 SCC 559
28
(2012) 9 SCC 685
Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
x. In view of the above settled position, disputed pleas regarding title
over property, genuineness of ownership, benami holding, source
of funds, nature of vehicle financing, or the evidentiary worth of the
alleged links between the accused persons are all matters for trial
and cannot be adjudicated conclusively in a petition for quashing.
IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
19. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
20. Though the present petitions are under Section 528 of the BNSS, the
principles governing the exercise of such inherent jurisdiction remain
substantially analogous to those developed under Section 482 CrPC.
Accordingly, the settled limitations on the exercise of inherent power
under Section 482 CrPC may safely guide the adjudication of the
present petitions as well. This Court is, therefore, conscious that such
jurisdiction, particularly after submission of charge-sheet and rejection
of an application for discharge, is to be exercised sparingly and with
circumspection. The High Court cannot undertake a meticulous
appreciation of evidence or convert the present CRLMCs into a mini
trial. It is equally settled, however, that once the investigation is over
and the charge-sheet is filed, the FIR pales into insignificance and the
Court may examine the materials forwarded with the charge-sheet to
ascertain whether the continuance of the criminal proceeding would
amount to abuse of the process of Court. The Court is therefore
required to see whether, on the uncontroverted prosecution materials
Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
themselves, the basic ingredients of the alleged offences are disclosed
against the present petitioners.
21. In Achin Gupta (supra) it has been held that there is nothing in the
words of Section 482 CrPC restricting the power of the High Court only
to the FIR stage, and that it would be a “travesty of justice” to hold that
a proceeding can be interdicted at the FIR stage but not after it has
culminated in a charge-sheet.
22. Similarly, in Sharif Ahmed (supra), the Court further explained that the
police report must reflect a thorough investigation and must show with
sufficient particularity and clarity the contravention of law alleged. The
relevant excerpts are produced below:
“The final report has to be prepared with these aspects in
mind and should show with sufficient particularity and
clarity, the contravention of the law which is alleged. When
the report complies with the said requirements, the court
concerned should apply its mind whether or not to take
cognisance and also proceed by issuing summons to the
accused. While doing so, the court will take into account the
statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the
Code and the documents placed on record by the
investigating officer.”
23. Thus, while this Court cannot weigh defense evidence, it is under a
duty to see whether the prosecution has at all laid the foundational
material necessary to justify the petitioners being sent to trial.
24. The case against petitioner A-5 is required to be tested on the legal
footing that she is admittedly not a public servant. Therefore, her
prosecution can survive only if the materials forwarded with the
charge-sheet prima facie disclose abetment or conspiracy in relation to
the alleged accumulation of disproportionate assets by A-1.
Page 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
25. In P. Nallammal (supra), the Supreme Court made it clear that a non-
public servant can indeed be prosecuted where he or she knowingly
assists the public servant by allowing tainted wealth to be parked or
concealed in that person’s name. But the same authority also shows
that there must be material indicative of conscious facilitation,
intentional aid, or active concealment. Mere relationship with the main
accused is not, by itself, enough. The relevant excerpts are produced
below:
“Four persons including the public servant decide to raise a
bulk amount through bribery and the remaining persons
prompt the public servant to keep such money in their names.
If this is a proved position then all the said persons are guilty
of abetment through conspiracy. The last illustration is this:
If a public servant tells A, a close friend of his, that he has
acquired considerable wealth through bribery but he cannot
keep them as he has no known source of income to account, he
requests A to keep the said wealth in A’s name, and A obliges
the public servant in doing so. If it is a proved position A is
guilty of abetment falling under the “Thirdly” clause of
Section 107 of the Penal Code.”
26. Applying the aforesaid standard, this Court finds that the prosecution
case against A-5, as presently placed, does not travel beyond suspicion
founded on relationship. She was not named in the FIR. The assets
attributed to her are personal ornaments found on her person, small
cash, a bank balance, insurance premiums, and one immovable
property. The petitioners have specifically urged that the very
prosecution papers disclose that the said land had been sold by A-5 by
a registered sale deed in the year 2002 in favour of Smt. Pramila Malik.
If that document is indeed part of the charge-sheet materials, then the
Page 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
continued attribution of the land and the house standing thereon as an
asset of A-5 is not a matter of disputed defence alone. It goes to the
internal consistency of the prosecution case itself. A court taking
cognizance and a court considering discharge could not have ignored
so basic a contradiction if it emerges from the prosecution record.
27. Apart from the above, no specific prosecution material has been
pointed out to this Court showing that A-5 knowingly permitted A-1 to
park ill-gotten wealth in her name, or that she entered into any
agreement with A-1 to conceal such wealth, or that she intentionally
aided the acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known sources of
income. The charge-sheet, as summarised, does not disclose any
witness or document demonstrating instigation, prior concert, or
intentional aid on her part. At the highest, it discloses a marital
relationship and possession of certain personal effects and financial
instruments. That is insufficient to satisfy the ingredients of Sections
109 and 120-B of the IPC. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute
the minimum legal foundation required to prosecute a private
individual for abetment in a disproportionate assets case.
28. The position of A-7 stands on an even weaker footing. He too was not
named in the FIR. No search was conducted in his premises and no
seizure was made from him. The prosecution seeks to connect him to
the alleged offence on the assertion that A-5 was using a postpaid
mobile connection registered in his name and that, on that basis, four
trucks were being held by him benami for A-1. The petitioners have
specifically contended that the charge-sheet does not enclose the
Page 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
registration certificates of the said trucks, does not incorporate records
from the Regional Transport Officer at Bargarh, does not place the hire
purchase or finance records on file, and does not cite the concerned
RTO as a prosecution witness. If that is so, the allegation against A-7 is
unsupported by the most elementary class of documentary material
that ought to have formed part of the investigation.
29. The vigilance’s objection that such pleas must all be left to trial cannot
be accepted in the peculiar facts of the present case. This Court is not
adjudicating the rival title over the trucks, nor is it accepting the
defense version on affidavit. The narrower question is whether the
prosecution papers themselves contain the foundational material
necessary even to put A-7 to trial.
30. In this regard, in Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (supra), the Supreme Court
has held that where the accused is able to demonstrate from the charge-
sheet material something that might drastically affect the sustainability
of the case, it is unfair to ignore it. The relevant excerpts are produced
below:
“If the accused is able to demonstrate from the chargesheet
material at the stage of framing the charge which might
drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is
unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered
or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of
granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as
envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. is to assist the
court to determine whether it is required to proceed to
conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of
such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and
therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced
by the accused before the I.O.”
Page 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
31. Here, the apparent absence of primary ownership and finance records
in respect of the four trucks goes to the root of the allegation and leaves
the accusation against A-7 resting on conjecture rather than material.
32. As regards the plea of mala fide and bias of the Investigating Officer,
this Court is of the view that it is unnecessary to return a final finding
thereon. The law declared in Iqbal (supra) is that when the allegation is
of a vexatious or motivated prosecution, the Court owes a duty to look
into the record with care and a little more closely. The Court held as
follows:
“Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking
either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the
criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that
such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance,
then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look
into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so
because once the complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal 14
vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint
is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The
complainant would ensure that the averments made in the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will
not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments
made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute
the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the averments and, if need
be, with due care and circumspection try to read in betweenPage 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution
need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is
empowered to take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for
instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered
over a period of time. It is in the background of such
circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking
vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.”
33. That closer scrutiny has been undertaken in the present matter. Even if
the allegation of personal vendetta is kept aside, the outcome does not
change because the prosecution materials, as noticed above, do not
themselves furnish the minimum factual substratum necessary against
either A-5 or A-7.
34. This Court also notes the contention regarding exoneration of A-1 in
the departmental proceeding. It is true that exoneration in a
departmental proceeding does not ipso facto result in termination of
the criminal prosecution, the two proceedings operating in distinct
fields. Yet this only means that such exoneration cannot by itself
conclude the present CRLMCs. It does not relieve the prosecution of its
obligation to disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners on the
basis of the charge-sheet material. On that independent touchstone, the
prosecution against A-5 and A-7 remains unsustainable.
35. In the ultimate analysis, this is not a case where the prosecution case
against the petitioners is broadly made out and the Court is being
invited to assess its probable success. Rather, it is a case where the
allegations, together with the evidence stated to have been collected, do
Page 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against
these petitioners. So far as A-5 is concerned, the materials do not prima
facie show conscious concealment or intentional aid. So far as A-7 is
concerned, the allegation of benami holding of trucks is unsupported
by the basic documents which alone could have given that allegation
legal substance. The case, insofar as these petitioners are concerned,
therefore falls squarely within the Bhajan Lal (supra) framework, at
least under Categories 3 and 5. The uncontroverted allegations and the
material collected do not disclose commission of any offence by them,
and the inferential leap sought to be made is so inherently tenuous that
no prudent person can regard it as sufficient ground for proceeding.
36. The further circumstance that the vigilance case has remained pending
for well over a decade and, as submitted, even charge has not yet been
framed, reinforces the need to prevent unnecessary continuation of a
prosecution that lacks foundational support against these two
peripheral accused. To compel them to undergo a criminal trial in such
circumstances would not subserve the ends of justice. It would amount
to abuse of process.
37. This Court cannot remain unmoved by the manner in which the
present prosecution, insofar as these two petitioners are concerned, has
been allowed to linger for years together without meaningful progress.
The FIR is of the year 2011, the charge-sheet is of 2012, and yet the
petitioners have continued to remain under the shadow of a serious
vigilance prosecution for well over a decade. Criminal law cannot be
permitted to hover endlessly over individuals, especially where the
Page 23
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
very material relied upon against them is found to be fragile and
lacking in foundational support. At some point, prolonged pendency
ceases to be a matter of mere delay and assumes the character of
manifest unfairness.
38. The prejudice caused by such delay is neither narrow nor merely
procedural. A vigilance case, by its very nature, carries grave social
consequences. To be continuously arrayed as an accused in a
corruption-linked prosecution for years together entails reputational
damage, mental distress, social embarrassment, disruption of normal
life, and persistent uncertainty in personal and professional affairs.
Even if the law ultimately corrects the course, the erosion of dignity
and peace suffered in the interregnum is rarely capable of full
restoration. The process of prosecution, when stretched over years
without sufficient legal substratum, thus becomes punitive in its own
right.
39. It is in this context that the constitutional requirement of fairness in
criminal process assumes significance. The Supreme Court in Kartar
Singh v. State of Punjab29 recognized that the right to speedy trial is an
integral facet of Article 21 and extends to all stages of the criminal
proceeding. The principle is not confined to cases of incarceration
alone; it is equally a protection against oppressive and unending
prosecution. The Court held as under:
“85. The right to a speedy trial is not only an important
safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration, to
minimise anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation29
(1994) 3 SCC 569
Page 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55and to limit the possibility of impairing the ability of an
accused to defend himself but also there is a societal interest
in providing a speedy trial. This right has been actuated in
the recent past and the courts have laid down a series of
decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. In
fact, lot of cases are coming before the courts for quashing of
proceedings on the ground of inordinate and undue delay
stating that the invocation of this right even need not await
formal indictment or charge.
86. The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an
essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty
guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right
to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by
arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all
stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial,
appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may
result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time
of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a
finality, can be averted. In this context, it may be noted that
the constitutional Page 16 guarantee of speedy trial is
properly reflected in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.”
40. In the facts of the present case, where the prosecution against these
petitioners is itself found wanting in foundational material, the long
continuation of the proceeding only compounds the injustice.
41. This Court is therefore constrained to observe that the Vigilance
Department must exercise a far greater degree of care and restraint
before arraying relatives, acquaintances, or other non-public persons as
accused in a disproportionate-assets case. The seriousness of anti-
corruption law does not license looseness in accusation. Mere
relationship with the principal accused, incidental association, or
inferential suspicion cannot substitute for primary material showing
conscious facilitation, intentional aid, concealment, or legally
Page 25
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
sustainable complicity. A specialized agency is expected to proceed
with greater precision and discipline, not with broader assumptions.
42. This Court considers it appropriate to observe that, in prosecutions of
the present nature, certain minimum safeguards ought to inform the
approach of the investigating agency: first, attribution of ownership,
benami holding, or financial linkage should rest on primary
documentary material actually collected during investigation; second, a
clear distinction must be maintained between suspicion arising from
proximity and material disclosing legal culpability; third, relevant
neutral or exculpatory material gathered in the course of investigation
ought not to be omitted from the record placed before the Court;
fourth, there must be meaningful supervisory scrutiny before
submission of charge-sheet, particularly where non-public servants are
sought to be implicated; and fifth, stagnant prosecutions should not be
mechanically allowed to continue where the factual foundation against
particular accused remains conspicuously weak. These are not
exhaustive directions, but minimum norms of fairness expected of a
responsible vigilance prosecution.
43. Tested on the above parameters, the present case discloses a clear want
of prosecutorial restraint insofar as these two petitioners are concerned.
This Court is compelled to deprecate the manner in which they were
drawn into, and kept entangled within, a serious criminal prosecution
for years despite glaring deficiencies in the material relied upon against
them. In matters of corruption, the authority of the prosecution
depends on the quality and fairness of the investigation, not on how
Page 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:04:55
widely the net is cast. When peripheral individuals are proceeded
against without adequate foundational material, the prosecution ceases
to advance public justice and instead risks undermining confidence in
the integrity of the process itself.
V. CONCLUSION:
44. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court holds that the continuation
of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is unsustainable in law
and amounts to abuse of the process of Court.
45. Accordingly, CRLMC No. 3815 of 2024 and CRLMC No. 1021 of 2024
deserve to be allowed. The criminal proceeding in connection with
Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 4 of 2011 corresponding to T.R. Case
No. 33 of 2013 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge
Vigilance, Balasore, shall stand quashed insofar as petitioner A-5 and
petitioner A-7 are concerned. Consequently, the order dated 08.11.2023
rejecting the discharge application of A-7 also stands set aside. It is
made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the case against the remaining accused persons, and the trial shall
proceed against them in accordance with law.
46. Accordingly, both the CRLMCs are disposed of being allowed.
47. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 17th April, 2026/
Page 27