Orissa High Court
Kamadev Biswal 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: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4672 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973).
Kamadev Biswal .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vig.) .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ananta Narayan Pattanayak, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Niranjan Moharana,
S.C. for Vig. Deptt.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-20.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.04.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner has instituted the present criminal miscellaneous case
(CRLMC) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023 ,
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of the
entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S.
Case No.42 of 2021 corresponding to VGR No.46 of 2021 and
subsequently converted to T.R. Case No.18 of 2023, pending before the
learned Special Judge , Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in connection with the
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
alleged commission of offences under Section 7 of Prevention of
Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) A complaint dated 06.12.2021 was lodged by one Sri Subhrajit
Samantaray before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance,
Bhubaneswar Division, Bhubaneswar, alleging misconduct
against the present petitioner while he was serving as Assistant
Executive Engineer in the Khurda Irrigation Division under the
Water Resources Department, Government of Odisha.
(ii) The complaint states that the informant, a C class contractor
engaged in Gherry work in the Satyabadi constituency was
closely known to one Sashibhusan Kar, a B class contractor who
had secured the work of Saline Gherry from Adal to Dochhian
under e procurement Notice No.06 KHD 2020 21 and Agreement
No.96 P1 2020 21 for a value of Rs 3882148 at 14.99 percent below
estimate along with GST of Rs 465857.76. It is alleged that as Kar
was otherwise occupied he asked the complainant to carry out the
work on his behalf on the strength of a sub-lease agreement
executed on 28th February 2021 before a Notary.
(iii) As stated in the affidavit the complainant carried out the work
and approached Sri Kamadev Biswal/ the present petitioner who
was serving as Assistant Executive Engineer at that point in time,
for clearance of the part bill on 27 November 2021 and the said
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16part bill amounting to Rs.527688/- was thereafter credited to the
account of the original contractor Sashi Bhusan Kar.
(iv) The complainant further alleged that after completing more than
70 percent of the Gherry work, he approached the present
petitioner on 06 December 2021 for measurement and release of
the next part bill whereupon the petitioner allegedly demanded a
bribe of Rs.10000/- for passing the earlier bill and preparing the
subsequent bill and made it clear that in the absence of such
payment, the bills would not be processed in favour of the
complainant.
(v) In this backdrop an FIR was registered against the present
petitioner as Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.42 dated 06
December 2021 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018 pursuant to which the
Vigilance team arrested the petitioner on 08 December 2021 and
he was later released on bail vide order dated 28 December 2021
passed by the learned Special Judge Vigilance Bhubaneswar.
(vi) Upon completion of the said investigation, the Investigating
Officer being the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance),
Bhubaneswar Division, submitted charge sheet No.03 dated 07
February 2023 against the present petitioner for the alleged
offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
as amended by the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act
2018.
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
(vii) Thereafter the learned Special Judge Vigilance Bhubaneswar,
took cognizance of the offence on 15 July 2023 in connection with
Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.42 of 2021, corresponding to
T.R. Case No.18 of 2023 for the offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention
of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018.
(viii) In the wake of the said allegations, a departmental proceeding
was also initiated by the Disciplinary Authority being the
Principal Secretary to Government Department of Water
Resources Government of Odisha and the petitioner was placed
under suspension on 07 December 2021. He was, however,
subsequently reinstated in service vide office order dated 20
September 2022 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to
Government Department of Water Resources.
(ix) In the departmental proceedings, the Additional Chief Secretary
to Government Department of Water Resources framed a
memorandum of articles of charges against the petitioner alleging
gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and failure to maintain
absolute integrity and honesty vide office order dated 05 May
2022.
(x) Aggrieved by the continuation of the criminal prosecution and
the attendant departmental action the petitioner has approached
this Court by way of the present CRLMC invoking its inherent
jurisdiction seeking quashing of the entire proceedings on the
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
assertion that the same is not founded on bona fide considerations
but is vitiated by vengeance, malice and an abuse of the process of
law and that allowing such prosecution to continue would result
in grave miscarriage of justice.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions
(i) The petitioner submits that the basis of the prosecution as reflected
in the FIR is inherently inconsistent and legally unsustainable
inasmuch as the said complainant alleges that on 06 December 2021,
he met the petitioner in his office where a demand of Rs.10000/- was
made and on the same day at about 2 PM he lodged a written report
before the Superintendent of Police Vigilance, Bhubaneswar
pursuant to which the Trap Laying Officer seized an agreement
dated 28 February 2021 produced by the complainant said to have
been executed between Sashi Bhusan Kar and the complainant.
However, the complainant has described the said document
inconsistent at one place as a sublease instrument and at yet another
as an affidavit thereby casting serious doubt on its nature and
authenticity of the said document. A plain reading of the document
would indicate that it is not a sublease nor any authorization to
execute the work but, in substance, a private arrangement of money
lending of Rs 100000 secured by signed cheques for repayment and
nothing more. It is therefore contended that the complainant had no
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
authority under the said document to execute the work awarded to
the original contractor and consequently lacked locus to claim
payment or allege any demand of illegal gratification. It is further
submitted that, had the Vigilance authorities examined the
document with due diligence, they would have found the grievance
to be misconceived. Moreover, any such subleasing arrangement is
contrary to the terms of the original contract and could not have
formed the basis for setting the criminal law in motion.
Accordingly, the initiation of the present proceeding is vitiated in
law and it amounts to an abuse of the process of Court.
(ii) The Petitioner further submits that the original Engineer contractor
namely Sashi Bhusan Kar has awarded the work vide e-
procurement Notice No.6 (KHD)- 2020 -21 and Bid Identification
No.e-KHD-06-01/2020-21 for the work “restoration to Saline Gherry
from Adal to Dochhina”. In this regard the said contractor executed
the agreement with the Executive Engineer, Khurda Irrigation
Division Khurda, on 19 February 2021 which was prior to the
petitioner’s assuming charge of the post on 01 March 2021 thereby
indicating that the contractual arrangement had been concluded
before the petitioner came to be associated with the said office. In
the Clause-7(i) of the Agreement clearly stated that “the Engineer
contractor shall have to execute the work if awarded to him under his direct
supervision and he will not be allowed to execute such work through his
power of attorney holder.” Further, Clause-18 states that “the contract
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
shall not be assigned or sub-let without written approval of the Engineer –
in-Charge”.
(iii) The petitioner further submits that no valid or lawful sub-letting
arrangement exists between the original contractor and the present
complainant nor has any prior approval been obtained from the
competent authority for such sub-letting as mandatorily required
under the contract. It is, therefore, contended that the allegation of
sub-letting is wholly contrary to the terms and spirit of the
agreement and devoid of legal sanctity. It is, further, brought on
record that upon enquiry the Superintending Engineer-II, Internal
Vigilance Bhubaneswar has categorically found that no sub-letting
agreement was ever executed nor was any sub-letting of the work
approved in favour of the complainant by the Superintending
Engineer Khurda Irrigation Division. This position stands affirmed
in the report of the Chief Engineer Internal Vigilance Bhubaneswar.
(iv) It is also undisputed that the complainant does not hold any
power of attorney from the original contractor in respect of the said
work and as such lacks any lawful authority or privity to assert
execution or claim any entitlement arising therefrom. The Petitioner
further contends that the original engineer contractor namely Sashi
Bhusan Kar having signed the tender agreement executed the work
and received amount covered under the 1st RA Bill for the work
“Restoration of Saline gherry from Adal to Dochhian (Damage and flood
control)” as per ANNEXURE-2 of the Petition. He did not make any
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
allegation of demand of bribe against the present Petitioner for
passing of 1st RA Bill. The engineer contractor Sashi Bhusan Kar was
examined in disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner
and in that proceeding also he has stated to have no knowledge
about the alleged demand of bribe by the petitioner to the so-called
complainant.
(v) The petitioner further contends that it is a well settled investigative
norm in trap cases that the Trap Laying Officer must satisfy himself
as to the veracity of the alleged demand of illegal gratification prior
to initiating trap proceeding, and that a prudent and unbiased
officer is expected to undertake at least a minimal verification rather
than acting solely on the assertions of the complainant. It is further
submitted that the FIR itself discloses inherent improbabilities,
inasmuch as the complainant alleges that he approached the
petitioner on 27 November 2021 for passing of a part bill, which
date falls on a Fourth Saturday, a notified government holiday
under the Odisha Government Calendar, 2021, thereby rendering
the allegation prima facie doubtful. It is contended that the
Vigilance authorities ought to have verified this elementary fact to
test the credibility of the allegation. Having failed to do so, the very
foundation of the preliminary enquiry stands shaky and the
subsequent trap proceedings are rendered legally unsustainable.
(vi) The petitioner further submits that at the time of the alleged trap
on 07 December 2021, he specifically apprised the Trap Laying
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
Officer that the complainant had not visited his office on 27
November 2021 or on 06 December 2021. It was further informed
that CCTV cameras installed at the entrance corridor of his office
were operational and requested that the footage be seized and
verified to ascertain whether the complainant had entered the office
premises on the said dates or not. It is also contended that had such
footage been secured on 07 December 2021, it would have
conclusively falsified the allegation of prior demand of bribe as
projected in the FIR. However, despite being made aware of the
existence and relevance of the CCTV system, the Trap Laying
Officer and the Investigating Officer failed to seize or examine the
footage. The omission of this fact, according to the petitioner, is not
inadvertent but deliberate and intended to suppress material
evidence that would have discredited the complainant’s version
thereby rendering the trap proceedings tainted and vitiated in law.
(vii) The petitioner further submits that the CCTV footage constituted
the most cogent and reliable piece of evidence to establish as to
whether the complainant had, in fact, entered the office premises of
the petitioner on 27 November 2021 and 06 December 2021, so as to
substantiate the allegation of prior demand of illegal gratification. It
is also contended that it was incumbent upon the investigating
agency to secure and produce such a cogent piece of evidence.
However, despite being fully aware of its existence and relevance,
the Trap Laying Officer and the Investigating Officer failed to seize
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
the said footage. According to the petitioner, this omission was
neither accidental nor bona fide, but deliberate and motivated, with
a view to sustain a false and vexatious prosecution. It is further
submitted that the petitioner brought these serious lapses to the
notice of the Principal Secretary to Government of Odisha, G.A. and
P.G. Department, by way of a detailed representation dated 08
August 2022, specifically highlighting the illegalities in the
investigation, including the non-seizure of CCTV footage for the
relevant dates. The aforesaid conduct, it is contended, clearly
demonstrates that the investigation was neither fair nor conducted
in accordance with the spirit of the settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence.
(viii) The petitioner further submits that a perusal of the sanction order
bearing No.2384 Gen dated 30 January 2023 reveals patent non-
application of mind and legal infirmity inasmuch as the petitioner is
alleged to have committed criminal misconduct by demanding and
accepting a bribe of Rs.10000/- and to have thereby attracted Section
7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is contended that such
conclusion is ex facie contrary to the statutory scheme as the offence
of criminal misconduct is specifically governed by Section 13 of the
Act whereas Section 7 pertains to the offence of a public servant
being bribed. The conflation of these distinct provisions
demonstrates a clear confusion on the part of the sanctioning
authority as to the nature of the alleged offence which according to
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
the petitioner stems from non-consideration or non-production of
the relevant materials collected during investigation. It is further
contended that the sanction order does not disclose any reasoning
nor does it satisfy the statutory requirement of application of mind
to the facts and evidence on record. It proceeds mechanically to
accord permission for prosecution without addressing the essential
ingredients of the alleged offence in law. On these premises, the
petitioner contends that the sanction order stands vitiated and
cannot sustain the prosecution in the eye of law.
(ix) The petitioner also submits that the findings emerging from the
departmental enquiry unequivocally demolish the substratum of
the prosecution case inasmuch as the Superintending Engineer
Irrigation Division Khurda upon due enquiry examined material
witnesses namely Prabhat Chandra Pattnaik, Assistant Engineer
Pradip Kumar Behera, Superintending Engineer and Subrat Kumar
Das, former Superintending Engineer who have consistently
deposed that subsequent to submission of the first R A Bill on 12
May 2021, no further bill was prepared in favour of the contractor
since no work was executed at site and no bill was pending at the
sub-division level for payment. It is further borne out from record
that as on 07 December 2021, no bill whatsoever was pending before
the present petitioner for consideration or approval. The petitioner,
therefore, contends that in the absence of any pending bill or
executable work the, foundational premise of demand of illegal
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
gratification for preparation or clearance of such bill stands
rendered wholly illusory and untenable in law thereby striking at
the very root of the prosecution case and rendering the allegation
inherently improbable and devoid of any factual or legal basis.
(x) It is further submitted that the original contractor namely Sashi
Bhusan Kar, in his statement, has categorically asserted that no sub-
letting agreement was ever executed in favour of any person and in
order to verify the same the Superintending Engineer Khurda
Irrigation Division by letter dated 14 February 2022 called upon the
said contractor to produce any power of attorney or document
evidencing sub-letting if existing. However, in response thereto the
original contractor by his letter dated 21 August 2024 addressed to
the Superintending Engineer reiterating the fact that he had not
sublet the assigned work in favour of any person. Therefore, he
contends that the consistent stand of the original contractor coupled
with the absence of any documentary proof of sub-letting, it clearly
negates the claim of the complainant and reinforces the position
that no lawful or factual basis exists to attribute any role or liability
to the petitioner on that premise.
(xi) It is further submitted that pursuant to the representation of the
petitioner an enquiry was initiated on the directions of the Engineer
in Chief-cum-Special Secretary, Internal Vigilance and the same was
conducted at the level of the Superintending Engineer-II, Internal
Vigilance Bhubaneswar and the Chief Engineer Internal Vigilance
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
Bhubaneswar. It is stated that the enquiry was undertaken by a
duly constituted committee comprising the Superintending
Engineer Khurda Irrigation Division, the Divisional Auditor the
Estimator the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khurda Irrigation Sub-
Division the Superintending Engineer II, Internal Vigilance and the
Executive Engineer I, Internal Vigilance thereby ensuring a
comprehensive and multi-tier examination of the matter in issue.
After conducting the enquiry meticulously, they found out and
held as follows:
a) There is no subletting of work approved by the
Superintending Engineer, Khurda Irrigation Division.
b) Subrajit Samantaray (Complainant) is not to be
related for the said work.
c) Work is incomplete and no work is going on since
15.12.2021.
d) On the date of occurrence about 12.13% work was
done but the claim of the complainant for execution of
70% work is baseless.
In view of the aforesaid report of the committee, the Chief Engineer,
Internal Vigilance, Bhubaneswar recorded a categorical finding that the
present petitioner had no manner of connection with the execution of
the work in question and that the claim regarding completion of 70
percent of the work was not borne out from the official records thereby
rendering the allegation factually untenable.
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
(xii) In so far as the departmental proceeding is concerned, it is
submitted that an enquiry was duly conducted wherein the
Additional Chief Engineer was appointed as the Enquiring Officer
and upon a comprehensive examination of the allegations and the
articles of charge the Enquiring Officer namely the Additional
Chief Engineer, Quality Assurance Circle Central Bhubaneswar
submitted his report dated 28 March 2023 to the Additional
Secretary to Government Department of Water Resources on 31
March 2023 wherein it has been held as follows:
a) there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation
made by the complainant that 70% of work has been
done at site.
b) after the R/A Bill, there is no work done at site, for
which there is question of preparing Bill by the present
petitioner does not arise at all.
c) the present petitioner has not committed any gross
misconduct and dereliction in discharging regular duty
and opined that “Headache without Head”.
d) there is no evidence adduced in the proceeding with
regard to demand of bribe made by the present
petitioner.
e) the petitioner has maintained absolute integrity,
decorum of conduct and same has not been proved
against him.
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
f) there is no evidence to prove the charges leveled
against the present petitioner and he cannot be held
guilty.
g) finally recommended the present petitioner is
exonerated from all the charges leveled against him.
In view of the aforesaid facts circumstances and the cumulative effect
of the materials placed on record including the findings of the
departmental enquiry and vigilance reports, the petitioner submits that
the prosecution lacks a legally sustainable foundation and is vitiated by
inherent contradictions, absence of material evidence and non-
application of mind. It is further contended that the essential
ingredients of the alleged offence remain unsubstantiated and the
continuation of the proceeding would not only be futile but would
amount to an abuse of the process of law resulting in grave miscarriage
of justice. It is therefore submitted that this is a fit case where the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court ought to be exercised to secure the
ends of justice by quashing the entire proceeding against the petitioner.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party/ Vigilance
through oral arguments and by filing of written note of submissions
earnestly made the following submission in support of his submissions
(i) The opposite party submits that the materials collected during
investigation, namely the FIR, preparation report, detection report,
and the statements of the complainant as well as the overhearing
Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC,
cumulatively lend due corroboration to the prosecution case and
clearly disclose the commission of an offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018 against the
petitioner.
(ii) The opposite party further submits that the Detection Report, which
sets out in detail of the circumstances relating to demand, acceptance
and recovery of the tainted money, bears the signature of the
petitioner as well as other witnesses, thereby evidencing due
acknowledgment of its contents. It is contended that such
endorsement lends substantial credence to the prosecution version.
It is further urged that the petitioner has taken inconsistent and
contradictory stands with regard to the possession of the tainted
currency notes, and such discrepancies raise questions of fact which
cannot be adjudicated in proceedings of this nature and are required
to be tested on the anvil of evidence during trial.
(iii) The opposite party further contends that the statements
recorded in the course of departmental proceedings are not
admissible as evidence in a criminal trial and cannot be relied upon
for the purpose of adjudication in the present proceeding. Ld.
Counsel further submitted that the departmental authority has not
yet rendered any final decision in the disciplinary proceeding and in
any event, even a finding of exoneration in a departmental enquiry
does not ipso facto warrants quashing or termination of the criminal
Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
prosecution inasmuch as the two proceedings operate in distinct
fields with different standards of proof and scope of consideration.
(iv) The opposite party further contends that the plea regarding
alleged non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority and
the validity of sanction and those grounds are essentially matters to
be examined during trial and cannot be conclusively determined at
this stage. It is further submitted that issues relating to corroboration
or contradiction in the statements of witnesses as well as
appreciation of evidence fall squarely within the domain of trial and
do not warrant interference in a proceeding under Section 482 of the
CrPC wherein the Court is not expected to undertake a detailed
evaluation of evidence.
(v) The opposite party Vigilance further contends that the grounds
as submitted by the petitioner are essentially in the nature of defence
pleas which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482
of the CrPC. It is submitted that a substantial portion of the
documents and materials relied upon by the petitioner do not form
part of the prosecution record and therefore cannot be considered at
this preliminary stage. It is further urged that the veracity,
admissibility and evidentiary value of such materials as well as the
defence sought to be projected can only be examined during the
course of trial upon proper proof and cross examination of
witnesses. Any evaluation thereof at this stage would amount to a
premature appreciation of evidence which is impermissible in law
Page 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
accordingly it is contended that no case for quashment is made out
and the present CRLMC is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon
careful perusal of the materials placed on record and the written notes
of submission, this Court proceeds to examine the contours of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which is to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and only to prevent abuse of the
process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. The jurisprudential
foundation of such power has been consistently delineated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1 and
subsequent authorities, wherein it has been held that where the
allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the
prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with
ulterior motive, interference is not only permissible but warranted.
6. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, far from being a
mere technical objection, strikes at the very substratum of the
prosecution case. In offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it
is a settled and indispensable requirement that demand of illegal
gratification must be clearly and unequivocally established. In the
present case, the Vigilance authorities, despite having the opportunity,
failed to undertake even the most elementary steps to verify the alleged
demand prior to laying the trap. The omission to record the telephonic
1
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335Page 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16conversation between the complainant and the petitioner, or to equip
the complainant with any recording device during the trap, assumes
significance in the absence of any independent corroborative material.
Such lapses cannot be brushed aside as inconsequential irregularities.
7. The failure of the investigating agency to secure the best available
evidence gives rise to a legitimate inference that the prosecution has
not come forward with the complete and unvarnished truth. It is not a
case of mere inadequacy of investigation, but one where the
foundational element of demand itself rests on uncorroborated
assertions of the complainant. While it is true that electronic evidence is
not a statutory mandate in every case, where such evidence is easily
obtainable and yet deliberately withheld or not collected, the Court is
justified in drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution. The
absence of any independent or tangible verification of the alleged
demand thus creates a serious dent in the credibility of the prosecution
story at its inception.
8. At the stage of considering the sustainability of the proceeding, the
Court is not expected to act as a mere silent spectator to manifest
investigative deficiencies that go to the root of the matter. Where the
materials on record fail to disclose a prima facie case of demand which
is an essential ingredient of the offence and the continuation of the
criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
In such circumstances, relegating the petitioner to face a full-fledged
trial, despite the inherent weakness in the prosecution case, would
Page 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
result in undue harassment and miscarriage of justice. The benefit of
such foundational infirmity must, therefore, go to the petitioner at this
stage itself.
9. The contention raised by the petitioner cannot be dismissed as a mere
defence plea to be relegated to trial, but discloses a foundational
infirmity which goes to the root of the prosecution case. The sequence
of events, as borne out from the record, prima facie suggests a hurried
and mechanical initiation of trap proceedings on the very next day, i.e.,
07.12.2021, without any meaningful effort to verify the alleged demand
attributable to the petitioner. The allegation of collusion between the
complainant and the Vigilance authorities, though requiring proof,
gains some plausibility in light of the conspicuous absence of any
independent verification or adherence to established procedural
safeguards. The investigating agency, instead of acting with
circumspection, appears to have proceeded in undue haste, thereby
casting a serious doubt on the fairness and integrity of the entire
exercise.
10. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid legal position, this Court finds that
the foundational facts in the present case are riddled with serious
inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities. The very locus of the
complainant to interact with the petitioner in relation to the execution
of the work is rendered doubtful in view of the admitted contractual
stipulations, which prohibit subletting without prior approval and
mandate execution of work by the original contractor under his direct
Page 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
supervision. The materials on record, including the vigilance enquiry
as well as the departmental proceedings, unequivocally indicate that no
such subletting was ever approved and that the complainant had no
legal privity with the contract.
11. It is well settled that while a preliminary enquiry may not be
mandatory in every case, it assumes significance where the allegations
are capable of verification and where the consequences of registration
of a vigilance case are grave and far-reaching for a public servant. In
such circumstances, fairness in action demands that the authorities act
with due diligence to ascertain the veracity of the complaint before
setting the criminal law in motion. The failure to do so, coupled with
the absence of any effort to secure even minimal corroborative material
regarding the demand, renders the prosecution vulnerable at its very
inception.
12. Accordingly, allowing the criminal proceeding to continue in the face
of such patent and fundamental deficiencies would result in subjecting
the petitioner to an unwarranted and oppressive trial, a course which
the law firmly discourages. The case, therefore, calls for judicial
intervention at this threshold stage to prevent abuse of the process of
Court and to secure the ends of justice.
13. It is further significant to note that even in the parallel departmental
proceeding, the allegations levelled by the complainant did not
withstand scrutiny and were found to be devoid of substance. The
specific accusation in the FIR, pertaining to preparation and
Page 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
measurement of work for the purpose of passing the bill, is
demonstrably misconceived. As per the established administrative
framework, the responsibility for preparation of the bill lies with the
Junior Engineer, while the authority to approve and clear the same
vests with the Superintending Engineer. The role of the present
petitioner is confined merely to verification and checking of the
assigned work, without any determinative authority in the matter of
bill approval.
14. In the aforesaid backdrop, the allegations levelled against the petitioner
are not only bereft of any substantive material on record but are also
fundamentally at variance with the well-defined contours of his official
duties. The prosecution, therefore, fails to disclose even the basic
ingredients necessary to constitute a prima facie case so as to justify
continuation of the criminal proceeding.
15. More importantly, it is now a settled principle of law that proof of
demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for establishing an
offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the
absence of such proof, mere recovery or acceptance of tainted G.C.
notes, divorced from the element of demand, would not suffice to bring
home the charge. The recovery, howsoever, incriminating it may
appear at first blush, cannot by itself sustain a conviction unless it is
preceded by and connected with a proven demand of bribe.
16. In the facts of the present case, where the essential ingredient of
demand of illegal gratification remains conspicuously unsubstantiated,
Page 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
the very edifice of the prosecution stands rendered fragile and
unsustainable. Continuation of such a proceeding, in the absence of this
indispensable requirement, would be legally impermissible and would
tantamount to a clear abuse of the process of Court, warranting
interference at this stage itself. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Neeraj Dutta Vrs. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi)2 framed a principles/ guideline on the very issue:
88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarized as under:
88. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the
prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt
of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.2 (b)In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has to first rov the demand of illegal
gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of
fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct
evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or
documentary evidence.
88.3.(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely the proof of
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be
proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct
oral and documentary evidence.
88.4.(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public
servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
2
(2023)4 SCC 731 : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029
Page 23
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe- giver without
there being any demand from the public servant and the
latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal
gratification, it is a case of
acceptanceasperSection7oftheAct.In such a case, there need
not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand
and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the
demanded gratification which in turn is received by the
public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of
obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification
emanates from the public servant. This is
anoffenceunderSections13(1)(d)(i)and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-
giver and the demand by the public servant respectively
have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In
other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal
gratification without anything more would not make it an
offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d),(i) and (ii),
respectively of the Act.
Therefore, underSection7oftheAct, in order to
bring home the offence, there must be an offer which
emanates from the bribe- giver which is accepted by the
public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a
prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the
bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is
received by the public servant, would be an offence of
obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the
Act.
88.5 (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand
and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may
Page 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when
the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and
documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On
the basis of the material on record, the Court has the
discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering
whether the fact of demand has been proved by the
prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is
subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of
rebuttal presumption stands
88.6 (f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has
died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial,
demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in
the evidence of any other witness who can again let in
evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the
prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence.
The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of
acquittal of the accused public servant.
88.7 (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the
proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to
raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the
purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said
Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court
as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course,
the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20
does not apply to Section 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.8 (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under
Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact
referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory
presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.
Page 25
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
17. Referring to the decision of the constitutional bench of the Apex Court
in case of the Neeraj Dutta Vrs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Supra)
further held that:
“Even the issue of presumption under Section 20 of the PC
Act has been answered by the Constitution Bench by
holding that only on proof of the facts in issue, Section 20
mandates the Court to raise a presumption that illegal
gratification was for the purpose of motive or reward as
mentioned in Section 7 (as it existed prior to the
amendment of 2018). In fact, the Constitution Bench has
approved two decisions by the benches of three Hon’ble
Judges in the cases of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra
Pradesh reported in2014 (13) SCC 55andP.
Satyanarayana Murthy Vrs. District Inspector of
Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported
in (2015) 10 SCC 152. There is another decision of a three
Judges’ bench in the case of N. Vijayakumar v. State of
Tamil Nadu, reported in2021 (3) SCC 687 , which follows
the view taken in the cases of B. Jayaraj and P.
Satyanarayana Murthy . In paragraph 9 of the decision in
the case of B. Jayaraj, this Court has dealt with the
presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. In paragraph
9, held thus:
“9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn
under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption
can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not
the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In
any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal
gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section
20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing
or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of
illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of
demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the
primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumptionPage 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.”
(emphasis added)
The presumption under Section 20 can be invoked only
when the two basic facts required to be proved under
Section 7, are proved. The said two basic facts are ‘demand’
and ‘acceptance’ of gratification. The presumption under
Section 20 is that unless the contrary is proved, the
acceptance of gratification shall be presumed to be for a
motive or reward, as contemplated by Section 7. It means
that once the basic facts of the demand of illegal gratification
and acceptance thereof are proved, unless the contrary are
proved, the Court will have to presume that the gratification
was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as
contemplated by Section 7. However, this presumption is
rebuttable. Even on the basis of the preponderance of
probability, the accused can rebut the presumption.
“18. The allegation of demand of gratification and
acceptance made by a public servant has to be established
beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision of the Constitution
Bench does not dilute this elementary requirement of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitution Bench was
dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand
can be proved. The Constitution Bench has laid down that
the proof need not be only by direct oral or documentary
evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including
circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on
circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for
gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every
circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court
to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so Criminal Appeal
No.1669 of 2009 established must be consistent with only
one hypothesis that there was a demand made for
gratification by the accused. Therefore, in this case, we will
have to examine whether there is any direct evidence of
demand. If we come to a conclusion that there is no direct
evidence of demand, this Court will have to consider
Page 27
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
whether there is any circumstantial evidence to prove
the demand.
18. Similar sentiment was echoed in N. Sunkanna Vrs. State of Andhra
Pradesh3 wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that :-
“Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from
the accused without proof of demand will not bring home
the offence under section 7 of the Act, since demand of
illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the said
offence.”
19. Referring to the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Soundarajan vrs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Vigilance
Anticorruption Dindigul4 has held in Paragraph 12 that:
“There is no circumstantial evidence of demand for
ratification in this case. In the circumstances, the offencesun
ishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read withSection
13(1)(d) have not been established. Unless both demand
and acceptance are established, offence of
obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means covered
by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved.”
20. Further, in case of Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi Vs. The State of A.P5, the
Apex Court has rendered the findings that :
“After a threadbare analysis and evaluation of the evidence
available on record, we feel that the prosecution case is
full of embellishments contradicting and doubting and
thus, it would not be safe to convict the
appellant(AO1) for having demanded and accepted the
bribe money from the complainant(PW-1). At the cost3
(2016) 1 SCC 713
4
(2023)16 Supreme Court cases 141: 2023 SCC Online SC 424
5
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 468Page 28
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16of repetition, we may state that the manner in which M.
Ashok S/o Abbaiah was associated as a panch witness in
the trap proceedings, creates a grave doubt that
the entire case was orchestrated against the
appellant(AO1) at the instance of the said M. Ashok”
21. Similar sentiment has also been expressed by this Court in Dibakar
Sethi Vrs. State of Odisha6, Raja Kishore Mishra Vrs. State of Odisha
(Vigilance)7, Rebati Ballav Tripathy Vrs. State of Odisha (G.A.
Department)8, Santosh Kumar Mishra Vrs. State of Odisha (Vigilance)9.
22. The observations and conclusions recorded by the sanctioning
authority are manifestly unsustainable in law. A perusal of the sanction
order reveals a complete absence of application of mind, inasmuch as it
neither discloses the material considered nor demonstrates satisfaction
of the statutory requirements necessary for according sanction under
the Act. The order is conspicuously silent as to how the ingredients of
the alleged offence are made out against the petitioner and fails to
reflect any independent evaluation of the record.
23. The issue of sanction also merits consideration. Sanction is not an idle
formality but a solemn act requiring due application of mind. The
apparent conflation of distinct statutory provisions and absence of
reasoning in the sanction order prima facie indicate non application of
mind. While ordinarily such issues may be left for trial, where the
defect is apparent on the face of the record and goes to the root of
6
(2024) 95 OCR-56
7
(2024)95 OCR-83
8
2024 (Supp.II) OLR-843
9
2024(Supp.II) OLR-1005
Page 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
jurisdiction, this Court would not be powerless to intervene. The grant
of sanction, being a solemn and sacrosanct act intended to afford
protection against frivolous prosecution, cannot be reduced to a mere
formality or mechanical exercise. In the present case, the sanction
appears to have been accorded in a routine and perfunctory manner,
without assigning reasons or indicating due consideration of relevant
facts. Such a sanction, lacking in reasoning and reflective scrutiny,
stands vitiated in the eye of law and cannot sustain the prosecution
against the petitioner. In this context, the Supreme Court in State of
Karantaka Vs. Ameer Jan10 has succinctly observed that:
“For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, application
of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority is
imperative. The order granting sanction must be
demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper
application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority.
We have noticed hereinbefore that the sanctioning authority
had purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the
basis of the report made by the Inspector General of Police,
Karnataka Lokayuktha. Even the said report has not been
brought on record. Thus, whether in the said report, either
in the body thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant
documents, IG Police Karnataka Lokayuktha had placed on
record the materials collected on investigation of the matter
which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in
regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant
concerned is not evident. Ordinarily, before passing an
order of sanction, the entire records containing the
materials collected against the accused should be placed
before the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of
sanction does not indicate application of mind as the10
2007(4) CCR 188 (S.C): AIR 2008 SC.108- (2007) 11 SCC 273Page 30
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16materials placed before the said authority before the order of
sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the
court to show that such materials had in fact been
produced.”
24. The report of the Internal Vigilance Committee dated 02.04.2022,
submitted by the Superintending Engineer (Internal Vigilance),
Bhubaneswar and the Chief Engineer (Internal Vigilance),
Bhubaneswar, unequivocally records that the present petitioner had no
nexus whatsoever with the execution of the work in question, and
further disbelieves the complainant’s assertion regarding completion of
70% of the work as being unsupported by official records. The said
findings are further fortified by the outcome of the departmental
proceeding, wherein, pursuant to the report dated 28.03.2023 submitted
by the Additional Chief Engineer-cum-Inquiry Officer, Quality
Assurance Circle (Central), Bhubaneswar, the petitioner stood fully
exonerated of all charges framed against him.
25. In light of these authoritative findings, rendered upon a detailed
evaluation of the records, the very substratum of the allegations stands
dislodged. Where, on identical facts and circumstances, a competent
departmental inquiry has culminated in a clean exoneration on merits,
holding the allegations to be unsustainable, the continuation of criminal
prosecution would be wholly unjustified. It is well settled that though
departmental and criminal proceedings operate in distinct spheres,
where the exoneration is not on technical grounds but on a clear finding
that the allegations are unfounded, permitting the criminal prosecution
Page 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
26. In the aforesaid circumstances, where the petitioner stands exonerated
on merits and the very allegations have been found to be devoid of
substance, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would be wholly
unjustified and legally unsustainable. Permitting such prosecution to
proceed, despite the collapse of its foundational basis, would amount to
a manifest abuse of the process of Court and cannot be countenanced in
law. The facts of the case presented before this Court, this Court had
the occasion to deal a similar case in Dr. Minaketan Pani Vs. State of
Odisha11 wherein it has been held in paragraph 26 that:
“For all of the aforementioned reasons, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case where on the same charges
on which the Petitioner is facing criminal trial he has been
honourably exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the
Court adopts the reasoning of the decisions in Radheyshyam
Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal (supra) and Ashoo
Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
EOW,CBI (supra) and sets aside the impugned order dated
15th January 2009, passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate(s) Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 1057 of 2007.”
27. Similarly, High Court of Bombay in case of Keshav Vs. State of
Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer and Another12 was of the
view that:
“It is pertinent to mention here that the criminal complaint
filed against the applicant by informant-Shri Milind Totare
does not contain any more allegations than what formed the
basis of charge no. 1 levelled against the applicant in the
11
2022 SCC OnLine Ori 3304 : (2022) 134 CLT 796
12
2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1314 : (2022) 3 Bom CR (Cri) 238 : (2022) 2 AIR Bom R (Cri) 816Page 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16department enquiry proceedings held against him in which
the applicant has been exonerated of charge no. 1. It then
follows that the criminal investigation being carried out
against the applicant in its present form cannot continue.
But, at the same time, if any other enquiry is made by the
Investigating Officer and some new material constituting
new offence is discovered, the Enquiry Officer would always
be at liberty to book the applicant for the new offence prima-
facie found against him. But till that time, the complaint in
the present form and the investigation based on it cannot be
allowed to continue or otherwise it would be nothing but
abuse of process of law.
In view of above, the application is allowed and the
First Information Report filed against the applicant bearing
Crime No.149/2020 dated 11/03/2020 at Police Station
Sadar, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under
Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is hereby quashed and set aside.”
28. Similar view was also expressed by the Apex Court in case of
Radheyshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal13 where the following
principles were laid down:
“38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions
can broadly be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can
be launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary
before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceeding and criminals proceeding are
independent in nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the
adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding
for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement
13
(2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 581Page 33
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law
to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution
or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of
the person facing trial for identical violation will depend
upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in
adjudication proceeding is on technical ground and not on
merit, prosecution may continue; and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where
allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the
person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set
of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue,
the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof
in criminal cases.”
29. In the meantime, the petitioner has already superannuated from service
and the continuance of the present criminal proceeding, in such
circumstances, would only result in undue hardship without serving
any meaningful legal purpose. It is well settled through a consistent
line of decisions of the Apex Court that while exercising inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court is required to
confine itself to the allegations contained in the complaint and the
accompanying materials, taken at their face value. At the same time,
such power, though to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection,
is intended precisely to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to
secure the ends of justice in appropriate cases.
30. In the conspectus of the present case, even if the allegations are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the
essential ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The prosecution,
being tainted by inherent infirmities, fails to meet the threshold
Page 34
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16
required for continuation of criminal proceedings. The case thus
unmistakably falls within the well-settled parameters governing the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Accordingly,
the present matter squarely attracts multiple recognized categories
warranting quashment, and any reluctance on the part of this Court to
intervene would not only perpetuate an abuse of the process of law but
would also occasion a grave miscarriage of justice. Recently, the Apex
Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors,14 has observed that:
“18. However, if the High Court is fully satisfied that the
materials produced by the accused are such that would lead
to the conclusion that his defence is based on sound,
reasonable and indubitable facts, or the same would rule out
or displace the assertions in the complaint or the materials
relied on by the accused would reject and overrule the
veracity of the allegations, the judicial conscience of the
High Court would persuade to exercise its power under
Section 482 of CrPC and to quash such criminal
proceedings to avoid or to prevent the abuse of the process of
the court and secure the ends of justice.”
31. Further, in Mukesh and others v. State of UP and others15 the Supreme
Court has held that the scope of Section 482 is wider than that of
discharge proceedings, as in quashing petitions the accused may rely on
documents outside the charge sheet to demonstrate abuse of process of
law. The relevant portions of at Para.8 are as follows;
“xxxx. However, in a petition for quashing either under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or14
AIR 2021 SC 1918
15
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 960Page 35
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 06-May-2026 13:51:16under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a wider
challenge is available including a challenge on the ground of
abuse of process of law. In such proceedings, the accused
can rely upon documents which are not the part of the
charge-sheet.”
V. CONCLUSION:
32. In view of the foregoing analysis, and upon careful consideration of the
material facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the F.I.R. as well as the criminal proceedings in
respect of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.42 of 2021
corresponding to VGR No.46 of 2021 and subsequently converted to
T.R. Case No.18 of 2023, pending before the learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, Bhubaneswar as well as consequential criminal proceedings
emanating there from, are liable to be quashed and set aside.
Consequently, this Court is inclined to accede to the relief prayed for by
the Petitioner.
33. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 17th April, 2026/
Page 36
