Orissa High Court
Smt. Renubala Samantray vs State Of Odisha (Vig) on 14 July, 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: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 918 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).
Smt. Renubala Samantray .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vig) .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, SC
for Vigilance Department
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-25.06.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.07.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, Smt. Renubala Samantray, is the wife of Sri Padmanav
Samantray, a public servant who served as Block Development Officer,
Bijepur Block, at the relevant time. She has instituted the present
proceeding under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of Charge-sheet No.21 dated 22.11.2024,
the order of cognizance dated 19.05.2025, and the consequential
criminal proceeding in C.T.R. Case No.9 of 2025 arising out of
Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.28 dated 29.08.2021.
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows:
(i) The prosecution originated from the interception of the Petitioner's
husband on 29.08.2021 near Mahanadi Bridge Chowk, Binka, while he
was travelling from Bijepur to Bhubaneswar in a rented vehicle. A sum
of ₹3,50,000/- was allegedly recovered from a black bag in his
possession, and, according to the Vigilance Department, he was unable
to satisfactorily explain its source. The interception was followed by
searches at different premises and investigation into the assets, income
and expenditure of the accused persons.
(ii) Upon completion of investigation, the Vigilance Department submitted
charge-sheet against the Petitioner’s husband for the offence of criminal
misconduct under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, and against the Petitioner for alleged abetment
under Section 12 of the Act. The prosecution alleges that the accused
persons possessed assets and incurred expenditure disproportionate to
their known lawful sources of income, though the materials refer to
different disproportionate-asset figures of ₹1,32,69,385/- and
₹1,14,25,346/-.
(iii) The assets attributed to the Petitioner include three parcels of
immovable property purchased between 2014 and 2018, a double-
storeyed residential building constructed at Patrapada between 2019
and 2021, bank balances, a scooter, jewellery, household articles and
other investments. The Vigilance Department has quantified the
immovable assets standing in her name at approximately ₹84,15,921/-,
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
movable assets at approximately ₹39,24,668/-, and expenditure
attributed to her at approximately ₹65,22,896/-.
(iv) The Petitioner asserts that the properties and construction were funded
from agricultural income, financial assistance received from her father,
housing loans obtained from LIC Housing Finance Ltd., transfers made
by her husband from sanctioned loan amounts, and friendly loans
supported by agreements. She also relies upon Income Tax Returns filed
for the assessment years corresponding to 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19
as evidence of independent sources of income.
(v) On 19.05.2025, the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bolangir, perused
the charge-sheet, FIR, statutory authorisation, statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., seizure lists, sanction order, case diaries and
other police papers, and found prima facie material for proceeding
against both accused persons. Cognizance was accordingly taken under
Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, and summons were directed to be issued.
II. ANALYSIS OF THE ORDERS OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, VIGILANCE, BOLANGIR:
3. The Learned Special Judge made the following observations:
(i) The order dated 19.05.2025 was passed by the learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, Bolangir upon submission of the charge-sheet. The order
records that the Court perused the First Information Report, charge-
sheet, statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, seizure
lists, statutory authorisation, sanction order, case diaries and other
accompanying police papers.
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
(ii) Upon such consideration, the learned Special Judge found prima facie
material to proceed against the Petitioner’s husband for the offences
punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, and against the Petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 12 of the Act. Cognizance was accordingly
taken and summons were directed to be issued against both accused
persons.
(iii) The impugned order is brief and does not separately identify the
particular transaction, statement or conduct relied upon to infer that the
Petitioner instigated, conspired with, or intentionally aided the
commission of the substantive offence. It proceeds on a general
satisfaction that the materials collected during investigation disclose a
prima facie case against both accused persons.An order taking
cognizance upon a police report is not required to contain an elaborate
assessment of the evidence or a detailed adjudication of the defence. Its
legality cannot, therefore, be questioned merely because the reasons
recorded are concise. The relevant inquiry is whether the charge-sheet
and the materials accompanying it, when taken at their face value,
disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the
person summoned.
(iv) Accordingly, the sustainability of the proceeding against the Petitioner
does not turn upon the length of the cognizance order, but upon
whether the prosecution materials disclose any petitioner-specific
circumstance capable of raising a prima facie inference that she
knowingly and intentionally facilitated the alleged acquisition, retention
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
or concealment of disproportionate assets. That question is examined
hereinafter independently of the explanations and defence documents
relied upon by the Petitioner.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioner contends that the principal allegation of acquisition of
disproportionate assets is directed entirely against her husband, who is
the public servant, and that she has been mechanically implicated
merely because she is his wife and certain assets stand in her name.
According to her, the charge-sheet does not contain any independent
allegation demonstrating that she instigated, conspired with, or
intentionally aided her husband in acquiring disproportionate assets.
(ii) It is submitted that the essential ingredients of abetment under Section
12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are absent. The Petitioner argues
that marital relationship, joint residence or ownership of property in the
name of a spouse cannot, by itself, establish intentional assistance or
participation in an offence, and that criminal liability cannot be founded
merely upon a presumption arising from the relationship between the
parties.
(iii) The Petitioner claims that she possesses independent and lawful
sources of income, including agricultural income derived from land
belonging to her father and father-in-law. She states that she is an
income-tax assessee and that her returns disclosed income from
agriculture, business and other lawful sources, but the investigating
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
agency allegedly failed to properly verify or account for such income
while calculating the alleged disproportion.
(iv) It is contended that the Patrapada property was purchased with the
assistance of a housing loan of ₹35,00,000/- sanctioned by LIC Housing
Finance Ltd. and that further construction was financed through
another housing loan of ₹26,00,000/- obtained by her husband, which
was transferred through banking channels to her account. She
maintains that the corresponding loan liabilities, repayment obligations
and bank transactions were not properly adjusted while valuing the
assets.
(v) The Petitioner further relies upon alleged friendly loans aggregating
₹25,00,000/- obtained under agreements dated 27.09.2018, 21.09.2019
and 02.11.2019 for construction of the residential house. She also claims
that one property was purchased from agricultural income and another
from financial assistance received from her father, supported by
withdrawals reflected in his bank account.
(vi) It is argued that all properties standing in the Petitioner’s name were
acquired through registered instruments and traceable banking
transactions, without any allegation of benami ownership, clandestine
cash payment or concealment. The Petitioner therefore submits that the
prosecution has failed to establish any prima facie mens rea or unlawful
intention attributable to her.
(vii) The Petitioner assails the order dated 19.05.2025 as mechanical and non-
speaking, contending that the learned court below did not identify the
specific materials constituting intentional aid, instigation or conspiracy
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
on her part. She accordingly seeks quashing of the charge-sheet, the
cognizance order and the entire proceeding insofar as they relate to her.
IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE (VIGILANCE):
5. The Learned Counsel for the State earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Vigilance Department contends that investigation disclosed
acquisition of substantial movable and immovable assets, bank
deposits, investments and expenditure in the Petitioner’s name, which
were disproportionate to the lawful income of the Petitioner and her
husband. According to the prosecution, the accused persons failed to
satisfactorily account for the disproportionate assets quantified during
investigation at ₹1,14,25,346/-.
(ii) It is submitted that the housing loans of ₹35,00,000/- and ₹26,00,000/-,
the personal loan of approximately ₹2,30,000/-, agricultural income of
₹2,96,247/-, and other documented income of the Petitioner and her
husband were already included on the income side of the charge-sheet
calculation. The contention that the investigating agency altogether
ignored the loans and agricultural income is therefore described as
factually incorrect.
(iii) The Opposite Parties assert that the Petitioner was principally a
homemaker and that no business establishment, books of account,
commercial activity or supporting document was discovered to
substantiate the business income reflected in her Income Tax Returns. It
is alleged that the returns were self-declaratory, filed within the rebate
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40limit without payment of tax, and could not, without independent proof
of the underlying source, establish lawful income.
(iv) The prosecution disputes the Petitioner’s explanation that the properties
purchased in 2014 and 2016 were financed through amounts received
from her father. It is contended that the alleged transfers were neither
disclosed in the Income Tax Returns of the Petitioner or her father nor
intimated to the competent authority under the applicable service rules,
notwithstanding that her father and husband were public servants.
(v) The Vigilance Department argues that valuable properties, a residential
building, bank deposits and investments were acquired or maintained
in the Petitioner’s name and that her attempt to independently explain
their acquisition itself gives rise to a triable issue regarding her
knowledge and participation. According to the prosecution, permitting
acquisition and concealment of assets in her name constitutes prima
facie intentional aid to the principal accused.
(vi) It is further contended that the Petitioner’s explanations regarding
agricultural income, business income, friendly loans, parental assistance
and construction expenditure involve disputed questions of fact
requiring examination of documents and evidence at trial. The High
Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, should not
conduct a mini-trial or determine the genuineness and evidentiary
value of the defence materials.
(vii) The Opposite Parties maintain that a non-public servant may be
prosecuted for abetment of an offence under the Prevention of
Corruption Act where prima facie material indicates that the person
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40knowingly facilitated acquisition, retention or concealment of
disproportionate assets. They consequently seek dismissal of the
petition, leaving the Petitioner free to establish her sources of income
and other explanations during trial.
V. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
7. The controversy lies within a narrow compass. This Court is not
required at this stage to determine the correct valuation or beneficial
ownership of the assets, or the genuineness of the income, loans and
financial assistance asserted by the Petitioner. The limited question is
whether the charge-sheet, taken at face value and independently of the
Petitioner’s defence, discloses any circumstance suggesting that she
knowingly and intentionally aided the alleged illicit enrichment of her
husband. Assets standing in her name may be relevant to the
computation against the public servant, but her prosecution under
Section 12 requires petitioner-specific material indicating instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid.
8. Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act makes the abetment of
an offence under the Act independently punishable. Read with the
principles embodied in Sections 107 to 109 of the IPC, abetment may
take the form of instigation, participation in a conspiracy, or intentional
aid. At the stage of cognizance, the prosecution need not establish these
elements conclusively, but its materials must disclose circumstances
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40capable of raising a prima facie inference of one of these forms of
participation.
9. In P. Nallammal v. State1 that if a public servant requests a third person
to hold illicit wealth and that person complies, the third person is guilty
of abetment. The Court held as follows:
“24….
The first illustration cited is this:
If A, a close relative of the public servant tells him of how other
public servants have become more wealthy by receiving bribes
and A persuades the public servant to do the same in order to
become rich and the public servant acts accordingly. If it is a
proved position there cannot be any doubt that A has abetted
the offence by instigation.
Next illustration is this:
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,
herequests A to keep the said wealth in A’s name,16and A
obliges the public servant in doing so. If itis a provedposition
A is guilty of abetment fallingunder the “Thirdly” clause of
Section 107 of thePenal Code.
25. Such illustrations are apt examples of howthe offence
under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Actcan be abetted by non-
public servants. The onlymode of prosecuting such offender is
through thetrial envisaged in the PC Act.”
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
10. The illustrations in the abovementioned precedent are not exhaustive,
nor is the prosecution required at the stage of cognizance to produce
direct or conclusive evidence of an express agreement or
understanding. Abetment and conspiracy may be inferred from conduct
and surrounding circumstances.
11. In State of Orissa v. Pratima Behera2, the Supreme Court held that, at
the stage of charge, the Court cannot undertake a meticulous
examination of the evidence or search for “clinching material”
establishing abetment. A strong suspicion, provided it is founded upon
the prosecution materials and surrounding circumstances, is sufficient
to require the accused to face trial. The Court also disapproved of the
reliance placed upon Income Tax Returns and other defence documents
for determining the merits of the spouse’s explanations at that
preliminary stage.
12. At the same time, the decision recognises that the prosecution materials
must disclose circumstances casting a strong suspicion that the non-
public servant played a significant role in the alleged offence. Thus,
while marital relationship and ownership of assets cannot be considered
in isolation, the cumulative prosecution material may justify a trial
where it indicates the spouse’s conscious participation
13. The present case stands on a different footing. This Court neither
accepts nor evaluates the Petitioner’s Income Tax Returns, loan
documents or other defence materials. Those explanations are kept
entirely outside consideration. Even after accepting the prosecution
2
2024 INSC 1010
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
allegations at their highest, the charge-sheet identifies no financial trail,
communication, false document, act of concealment or other
circumstance suggesting that the Petitioner knew of the alleged illicit
source of the funds and intentionally assisted in their acquisition,
retention or concealment. The distinction, therefore, arises from the
prosecution case itself and not from an assessment of the Petitioner’s
defence.
14. The present case is also distinguishable from P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v.
State3. There, after a completed trial and concurrent factual findings, it
stood established that the public servant had acquired disproportionate
assets in his wife’s name and that she had actively assisted in their
concealment. The Supreme Court therefore treated her conduct as
intentional aid. In the present case, there is neither an admission nor an
established money trail showing that the consideration for the assets
standing in the Petitioner’s name represented illicit funds of her
husband. Nor does the charge-sheet identify any active act of
concealment attributable to her.
15. In State v. Uttamchand Bohra4, the Supreme Court held that recovery
of a title deed from the accused’s house and the fact that his employee
had witnessed the sale deed were not enough to prove abetment. There
was no material showing that he had financed or actively facilitated the
transaction. In that case, a public servant was accused of purchasing
property in the name of a company from unexplained income.
3
2025 INSC 674
4
(2022) 16 SCC 663
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
Uttamchand Bohra was prosecuted for abetment because his employee
had witnessed the sale deed and the title documents were recovered
from his house. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order
quashing the case, holding that these circumstances were insufficient to
establish abetment. The Court held as follows:
“36. An entire overview of the material produced before the
trial court, with the charge-sheet and final report, as well as
deposition of the 74 witnesses who were examined during the
trial, does not support CBI’s allegation of Uttamchand. He did
not directly or indirectly finance the transaction by which
property was sold to M/s Raviteja Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
which, according to that prosecution, was in fact by A1.
Therespondent also is not alleged to have facilitatedthe flow of
money to fund acquisition of the flat.The materialput against
him is that the saledeed was seized, prior to thepresent case.
Theother circumstance put against him is that hisemployee
witnessed the sale deed. Therespondent isconcededly neither
the owner, norhas any links with M/sRaviteja Trading Co.
Pvt.Ltd. In these circumstances, thisCourt is of theopinion
that no material which can prima faciesupport an inference
that Uttamchand was eithera conspirator or had abetted the
commission ofthe offencesalleged against the accused A-1
ismade out.”
16. The statutory scheme requires two distinct, though sometimes
overlapping, inquiries.
17. The first is the asset-attribution inquiry under Section 13(1)(b), read
with its Explanation. The relevant section is produced below:
“13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
[(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct,-
(a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or
otherwise converts for his own use any property entrustedPage 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40to him or any property under his control as a public servant
or allows any other person so to do; or
(b) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the
period of his office.
Explanation 1. – A person shall be presumed to have
intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he or any
person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any
time during the period of his office, been in possession
of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate
to his known sources of income which the public
servant cannot satisfactorily account for.
Explanation 2. – The expression “known sources of
income” means income received from any lawful
sources.” (Emphasis Supplied)
18. The second is the culpability inquiry under Section 12. Here, the
question is whether the person in whose name the property stands
knowingly and intentionally assisted the acquisition, retention or
concealment of illicit wealth. Such assistance may be inferred from
direct or circumstantial material, including a suspicious money trail,
false documentation, fictitious transactions, communications, active
concealment or other conduct indicating conscious participation.
19. The two inquiries cannot be treated as identical. Material sufficient to
attribute an asset to the public servant may not, by itself, be sufficient to
prosecute its ostensible holder for abetment. The statute permits
attribution of property to the public servant. However,it does not
automatically attribute the public servant’s criminal intent to the
personin whose name the property stands.
20. For analytical clarity, the statutory distinction may be expressed
through two related nexuses: first, the connection between the asset and
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
the public servant; and secondly, the inculpatory connection between
the conduct of the name-holder and the alleged offence. The same
material may, in an appropriate case, support both inquiries. The
second, however, cannot be presumed merely from marriage, common
residence or ownership of property.
21. The Court cannot be oblivious to the social setting in which financial
arrangements within a household may operate. Where one spouse is the
principal earning member and the other is a homemaker, properties and
accounts may sometimes be placed in the latter’s name at the instance of
the earning spouse. Such a circumstance may justify closer scrutiny of
the source and beneficial ownership of the asset and may support its
attribution to the public servant.
22. It does not, however, necessarily follow that the homemaker was
informed of the unlawful source of the funds or consciously agreed to
conceal illicit wealth. Acting at the instance of a spouse is distinct from
knowingly assisting in the acquisition or concealment of illicit assets.
The former may explain how the property came to stand in her name,
but the latter requires some further circumstance indicating knowledge
and intentional participation.
23. This does not mean that direct or conclusive evidence is required at the
stage of cognizance. A strong suspicion arising from the cumulative
circumstances may be sufficient. Nevertheless, there must be some
identifiable circumstance from which the alleged abettor’s knowledge
and intentional assistance may reasonably be inferred.
Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
24. At this stage, it is necessary to distinguish a prohibited mini-trial from
the scrutiny required under Section 528 of the BNSS. A mini-trial occurs
when the Court compares rival versions, tests the credibility of
witnesses, determines the genuineness of documents, resolves disputed
facts or records findings on the lawful source and beneficial ownership
of the assets. This Court undertakes none of those exercises.
25. For the present purpose, the prosecution’s computation and factual
allegations are accepted at their highest, while the explanations and
defence materials relied upon by the Petitioner are kept entirely outside
consideration. The Court asks only whether the facts alleged by the
prosecution, even if assumed to be true, disclose the essential
ingredients of abetment under Section 12. This is an examination of the
legal sufficiency of the prosecution case, not an assessment of the
reliability or weight of its evidence.
26. The prohibition against conducting a mini-trial does not prevent the
High Court from mapping the allegations in the charge-sheet onto the
ingredients of the offence. Indeed, a refusal to undertake even such a
prima facie examination would render the inherent jurisdiction
ineffective. Where the prosecution materials disclose circumstances
capable of raising a strong suspicion of knowing assistance, the matter
must proceed to trial. Where they describe the assets but omit the
inculpatory link necessary to constitute abetment, the Court may
interfere to prevent abuse of its process.
Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
27. In fact, recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Dave v. State
of Rajasthan5rejected the use of “no mini trial” principle as a reason to
not examine where the complaint contained the basic facts constituting
the alleged offences. The Court held as follows:
“15. It was observed that it was not necessary to enter into the
factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations made
in the complaint. With the aforesaid observations, the High
Court concluded that the argument advanced on behalf of the
appellant that mere levelling of allegations does not constitute
cognizable offences was not fit to be accepted. Accordingly, the
quashing petition came to be dismissed.
16. We feel that the pertinent plea raised by the appellant in
the quashing petition regarding the FIR being bereft of
particulars and based on vague and uncertain allegations
merited consideration by the High Court. The law is well
settled that even though an FIR need not be an encyclopaedia,
it must undoubtedly contain the basic facts and allegations
constituting the commission of cognizable offence(s). In the
present case, since the complainant-company was a reputed
media house, the onus was greater upon it to clearly set out the
relevant details and material particulars prima facie
establishing the alleged criminal acts attributed to the
appellant.”
28. Tested on the aforesaid distinction, the prosecution materials may
justify an inquiry into whether the assets standing in the Petitioner’s
name were, in substance, held on behalf of the public servant and
should form part of the disproportionate-assets computation against
him. The asset-attribution nexus may, therefore, remain open for
adjudication at trial.
5
2026 INSC 244
Page 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
29. The difficulty lies with the culpability nexus. The charge-sheet does not
identify any financial trail, communication, false document, fictitious
transaction, act of concealment or other circumstance suggesting that
the Petitioner knew of the alleged illicit source of the funds and
nevertheless assisted in their acquisition, retention or concealment.
30. The weakness or inadequacy of the explanations offered by the
Petitioner cannot supply this missing nexus. An unsatisfactory
explanation may strengthen an existing chain of incriminating
circumstances, but it cannot, by itself, create the first link in that chain
or establish knowledge and intentional aid.
31. The variation in the figures stated by the prosecution may be clarified
during the proceeding against the principal accused and has not been
treated as a ground for granting relief to the Petitioner.
32. Hence, the conclusion is not founded upon the brevity of the cognizance
order. An order taking cognizance upon a police report need not
contain an elaborate discussion of the evidence. The relevant defect lies
in the underlying prosecution materials which, even when taken at face
value, do not disclose a petitioner-specific circumstance constituting
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. A general statement that
prima facie material exists cannot, by itself, supply an ingredient absent
from the charge-sheet.
33. The foregoing exercise does not determine whether the assets lawfully
belong to the Petitioner, whether the sources asserted by her are
genuine, or whether the public servant supplied the consideration for
their acquisition. Those questions remain open. The finding is confined
Page 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
to the legal sufficiency of the prosecution materials against the
Petitioner: even when accepted at their highest, they do not disclose the
separate inculpatory nexus required to proceed against her for
abetment.
34. Although the hardship and delay of a criminal trial cannot by
themselves justify quashing, the Court cannot ignore the nature of the
present prosecution. It involves numerous properties, bank
transactions, loan accounts, tax records and other financial documents.
The trial is therefore likely to be prolonged and document-intensive.
35. Where the prosecution materials, even if accepted in full, fail todisclose
the essential ingredients of the offence against the Petitioner,
compelling her to undergo such a trial would serve no legitimate
purpose. The hardship of trial is not an independent ground for
interference. It only reinforces the conclusion that continuation of the
proceeding would amount to an abuse of process and make the trial
itself an unintended punishment.
VI. CONCLUSION:
36. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that continuation of the proceeding
against the Petitioner would permit a prosecution founded upon her
status as the spouse and the existence of assets in her name, without any
identified circumstance giving rise to a strong suspicion of conscious
participation. The assets may continue to be examined, in accordance
with law, while determining the case against the public servant. The
asset-attribution inquiry therefore remains open; the materials presently
Page 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Jul-2026 14:02:40
disclosed, however, do not establish the separate culpability nexus
required to proceed against the Petitioner under Section 12.
37. Consequently, the CRLMC is allowed. Charge-sheet No.21 dated
22.11.2024, the order of cognizance dated 19.05.2025 and the proceeding
in C.T.R. Case No.9 of 2025 arising out of Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case
No.28 dated 29.08.2021 are hereby quashed insofar as they relate to the
present Petitioner.
38. It is clarified that this order shall not affect the prosecution against the
principal accused, nor shall any observation made herein be treated as a
final determination regarding the ownership, valuation or lawful source
of the assets attributed to him. It is further clarified that, if any fresh,
cogent and legally admissible material subsequently emerges indicating
the Petitioner’s knowing and intentional participation in the alleged
offence, this order shall not preclude further investigation, submission
of an appropriate supplementary report, or any consequential action,
subject to the applicable procedural law and independent consideration
by the competent court.
39. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 14th July.2026/
Page 20
