Bijay Laxmi Nayak & Ors. v. State of Odisha

Judgment

-17.04.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. Since the issues raised in both the above-mentioned CRLMCs involve common questions of fact and law, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience and effective adjudication, CRLMC No.3815 of 2024 is treated as the lead case.

2. The Petitioner, in CRLMC No.3815 of 2024, has made a prayer to quash the initiation of criminal proceeding against her in connection with Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.4 of 2011 corresponding to T.R. Case No.33 of 2013 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge Vigilance, Balasore. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) One Nagendra Prasad Nayak, OPS, DSP, while serving as SDPO Bonai in Rourkela Police District, was subjected to a simultaneous Vigilance search and seizure operation at six locations on

28.12.2010, on the strength of search warrants issued by the learned C.J.M., Balasore vide Misc. Case No.13 of 2010. Consequent thereupon, Sri B.C. Sethi, DSP, Vigilance, Jajpur Unit lodged an FIR in Balasore Vigilance Police Station on 04.02.2011, which was registered as Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.4 of 2011 under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 109/420/120-B of the IPC. The FIR was registered against four persons, namely, Sri Nagendra Prasad Nayak (A-1), Ajit Patnaik, late Gobinda Chandra Nayak (father of A-1), and Prasanta Kumar Nayak (brother of A-1). A chargesheet (No.41 of 2012) was subsequently submitted on

29.09.2012 under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sections 109/420/467/468/409/120-B of the IPC, which culminated in T.R. Case No.33 of 2013 in the court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore. (ii) The investigation revealed that Sri Nagendra Prasad Nayak (husband of the Petitioner in CRLMC No.3815 of 2024) had accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period from 02.04.1982 to 28.12.2010. The assets taken into consideration by the Vigilance officials comprised both movable and immovable properties. The immovable property was estimated at Rs.39,26,000/- and the movable property at Rs.1,24,96,467/-, totalling Rs.1,53,66,467/-. The disproportionate assets were calculated at 698%.

(iii) The Petitioner in CRLMC No.3815 of 2024, Smt. Bijay Laxmi Nayak (arrayed as A-5), is the wife of A-1. She was not named in the FIR. As per the chargesheet, on the date of search she was present at her paternal house at Keonjhar and was found in possession of gold and silver ornaments on her person valued at approximately Rs.1,17,600/-, a plot of land admeasuring 0.08 decimals at Baniapat, Keonjhar with a building valued at approximately Rs.15,02,609/-, cash of Rs.4,900/-, a bank balance of Rs.5,356/- in SBI Bargarh Branch, and insurance premiums of Rs.4,49,800/- in three Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance policies. The total value of assets as disclosed in the chargesheet and the objection filed by the Vigilance amounts to approximately Rs.19,93,654/-. The only source of income attributed to her during the check period was house rent amounting to Rs.2,88,000/-. (iv) The Petitioner in CRLMC No.1021 of 2024, Sri Anil Kumar Tomar (arrayed as A-7), is an acquaintance of the family of A-1. He was neither named in the FIR nor were his premises searched, nor was any seizure effected from him. The chargesheet alleges that he was holding four trucks in benami for A-1, on the ground that the Petitioner in CRLMC No.3815 of 2024 (A-5) was found using a postpaid mobile phone registered in the name of A-7, whose bills were being paid by A-7 regularly. (v) Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present CRLMCs. The Petitioner in CRLMC No.3815 of 2024 seeks quashing of the chargesheet and the criminal proceeding. The Petitioner in CRLMC No.1021 of 2024 seeks quashing of the chargesheet as well as the order dated 08.11.2023 rejecting the discharge application passed in T.R. Case No.33 of 2013 pending before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly advanced twofold submissions in support of their prayer for quashing: first, on the facts on record; and second, on the legal propositions, for which reliance was placed several judicial precedents authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court: I. Submissions on Facts: (i) It was submitted that this is a case of false implication driven by the personal animosity and grudge of the Investigating Officer (IO) against A-1. The animosity dates back to an incident in 2006 wherein A-1 had chargesheeted the wife of the IO in a motor accident case (C.S. No.19 dated 14.01.2009, Bolangir Sadar P.S. Case No.267 of 2006). This ground was specifically raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.9122 of 2011 and was not rebutted by the Opposite Party. A-1 had also represented to the Director, Vigilance vide letters dated 03.11.2011 and

30.11.2011, requesting a change of IO and expressing apprehension of prejudice and unfair investigation. These representations were not heeded. (ii) With respect to A-5 (the Petitioner in CRLMC No.3815 of 2024), it was submitted that she was not named in the FIR. The ornaments found on her person constitute her Stridhan, and the cash of Rs.4,900/- was her domestic cash. She does not own any immovable property. The plot mentioned at Col.12(43) of the chargesheet, admeasuring 0.08 decimals, was purchased in 2001 for Rs.1,00,000/- and sold for the same consideration to her sister- in-law, Smt. Pramila Malik, in 2002, on which Smt. Pramila Malik has constructed her dwelling house and continues to own it to date. (iii) With respect to A-7 (the Petitioner in CRLMC No.1021 of 2024), it was submitted that he was neither named in the FIR nor were his premises searched, nor was any seizure made from him. A-7 is a Transporter and owns several trucks. The four trucks mentioned in the chargesheet under the column ’Assets’ at Sl. Nos.21 to 24 (bearing R.C. Nos. OR-17D-6608, OR-17E-3608, OR-17A-6808, and OR-17A-6708) were 100% financed vehicles being operated under Hire-Purchase agreements with HDFC Bank and TATA Finance. The IO neither obtained information from the RTO, Bargarh regarding the registration details of these vehicles nor seized the RC copies, and the same do not figure among the 186 documents relied upon by the prosecution in the chargesheet under Col.12. The IO also did not array the RTO, Bargarh or his staff as prosecution witnesses among the 86 witnesses listed under Col.15, although RTOs of Chandikhol, Keonjhar, and Bhadrak were made prosecution witnesses for other vehicles. (iv) It was further submitted that the chargesheet was signed on

29.09.2012 but was submitted before the jurisdictional Court only on 24.06.2013, with no explanation for the delay of approximately nine months. Additionally, the IO was found guilty of a fake trap operation and the Odisha Human Rights Commission imposed a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- upon him. He was unceremoniously repatriated by the Vigilance Directorate and all his pensionary benefits have been withheld. II. Submissions on Legal Propositions:

5. It was contended that the investigation was tainted by the personal bias and mala fide of the IO, and that the right to a free and fair investigation is a facet of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on State of Bihar & Anr. v. P.P. Sharma, IAS & Anr.1, wherein the Apex Court observed that the investigating officer is the arm of the law and plays a pivotal role in the dispensation of criminal justice; that it is never his business to fabricate evidence to connect a suspect with the commission of crime; and that an investigating officer who is not sensitive to constitutional mandates may be prone to trample upon the personal liberty of a person when actuated by mala fides.

6. Further reliance was placed on Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors.2, wherein the Apex Court reiterated that the investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that the investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive; and on Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)3, where it was held that the criminal justice administration system places human rights and dignity at a high pedestal, and the investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent, and expeditious to ensure compliance with the basic rule of law.

7. It was submitted that the chargesheet is liable to be quashed on the ground of incompleteness and lack of evidence. The allegations against A-7 are not supported by any listed document in the chargesheet. Had the IO investigated the RTO, Bargarh and seized the Registration Certificates of the listed vehicles, it would have been established that the vehicles were Hire-Purchase vehicles and were 100% financed. Similarly, though the IO alleged that A-5 was the owner of the land and