The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.1167 of 2023 Jagnyaseni Mohanty …. Petitioner State of Odisha (Vig.) …. Opp. Party -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P. Parija, Advocate Mr. N. Moharana, Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 13.06.2023 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. P. Parija, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Moharana, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department. Perused the record as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. This CRLMP application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to delete the name of the present petitioner from the record of the Cuttack Vigilance cell P.S. No.06 of 2016 corresponding to V.G.R. No.09 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner laid much emphasis on the averments made in the application particularly paragraph-3 of the application wherein it has been stated as follows:- “3. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner // 2 // categorically stated before was arrayed as an accused U/s-109 of the IPC on the ground that some assets stand in her name. It is humbly submitted that merely some assets which are allegedly acquired by the husband of the petitioner in the name of the petitioner and his family member, can no way make out an offence U/s-109 of the IPC to implicate her in this case. It is quite natural and usual that the husband like the main accused should/may acquired or record the immovable properties and deposits in the name of his wife or his children, because of their relationship. On that count the wife or children cannot be implicated for abetment, unless and until the said wife or children claim(s) that those assets are acquired by them from their own sources of income even if they have no lawful sources of income, in order to cover up the ill-gotten money of the accused husband/father as the case may be. The same thing has been happened in this case. The petitioner has the Investigating Officer that the assets stand in her name, have been acquired by here husband in her name, and she has also no knowle3dge about the possession of said asset from his ill-gotten money. She has also stated by way of affidavit that she has no knowledge regarding any filling of any Income Tax Return in her favour and the same have been filed by her husband in her name. She has also further stated that she had never given any financial assistance or any sort of pecuniary or intentional aid to her husband for acquisition of above asset. She has also stated that she had only put her signature as per instruction of her husband in good faith and without any knowledge of illegality or intention or ill-intention because of their fiduciary relationship in respect of the assets stands in her name. the petitioner on 14.01.2022 send her written the IO explanation as stated above through to the said written Registered Post. The copy of explanation dtd. 14.01.2022 is submitted herewith as Annexure-2. The Investigating Officer intimated the petitioner that unless the said explanation under Annexure-2 as has not been given by way of affidavit, the same cannot be accepted to exonerate her from the case. Accordingly, a detailed Statement by way of original affidavit dtd.03.05.2022 narrating the entire explanation has been given by the petitioner to the // 3 // Investigating Officer as required by him to delete or struck out her name from the case. Copy of the said statement by affidavit of the petitioner is submitted herewith as Annexure-3 Series. In view of the said affidavit petitioner should not be implicate U/s-109 of the IPC or in this case, and her name should be struck down or deleted from the case. Instead of deleting her name from the case, now the opposite party (vig) insisting the petitioner to obtain an order from this Hon’ble Court to strike out her name from this case in view of the affidavit u/A-3 series.” 5. From the above quoted averments in paragraph-3 of the application, it appears that assets have been recorded in the name of the petitioner without her knowledge and intention. However, in view of the specific averments made above in the application, it is clear that the same were acquired by the husband of the petitioner in the name of the petitioner and other family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that solely on that basis no offence under Section 109 of the IPC is made out against the present petitioner. 6. In reply to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department, on instruction obtained from the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack (Vigilance) Cell vide order dated 12.06.2023, submitted before this Court that in view of the categorical assertions made in the paragraph-3 of the application and the statements made in the affidavit under Annexure-3 series, the name of the petitioner can very well be deleted from the case record, however, the same can only be done subject to certain conditions. Further, it is submitted by learned Standing Counsel for the (Vigilance) Department that the statements on the affidavit under Annexure-3 series shall be treated as evidence during trial and the petitioner shall not dispute the same in any manner whatsoever, to // 4 // which learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection. Moreover, it was also contended that the investigation of the case is still continuing. 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis as well as the factual position, this Court directs that the name of the petitioner be deleted from the above noted vigilance case subject to condition that the affidavit under Annexure-3 series submitted by the petitioner shall be treated as evidence for trial and the petitioner shall not dispute the same in any manner as to the facts stated therein. 8. However, it is made clear that the investigation in respect of the principal accused i.e. husband of the petitioner shall continue in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid direction/observation, CRLMP is disposed of. Jagabandhu ( A.K. Mohapatra) Vacation Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Secretary-in-Charge Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 14-Jun-2023 11:34:30