High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH IGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTAC TTACK CRLREV No. 882 of 2025 Ganeswar Pradh radhan …. Petitioner ha State of Odisha -versus- …. Mr. G. Muduli uduli, Advocate Oppo pposite Party Mr. Sangram For Vigilance De gram Das, S.C. nce Department CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 10.12.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. The legali legality, propriety and correctness of the o f the order dated 09.10.2025 passe passed by the learned Special Judge, udge, Vigilance, Balasore in T.R. T.R. Case No.1 of 2025 rejecting the pra the prayer of the Petitioner for disch r discharge has been called in question in thi in this revision. 2. The backg
Facts
background facts of the case are that one N one Naba Kumar Ray of VIP Colony Colony, Chidiapol, who is a license holder o lder of IMFL Off Shop having ing License No.02/2019/0024 reported reporte before Superintendent Vi Vigilance, Balasore alleging that he wa was informed over phone by AS by ASI Pradeep Kumar Mohanty of Chand Chandipur Police Station to meet t meet the newly joined IIC, Ganeswar Pr ar Pradhan (the Petitioner) for disc discussion and accordingly, he went to the t to the Chandipur Police Station and on and the IIC demanded Rs.50,000/- (Ru (Rupees Fifty CRLREV No.882 of of 2025 Page 1 of 9 Thousand only) nly) per month for running the IMFL Off L Off Shop. It is further alleged tha ed that when the said Naba Kumar Ray ex ay expressed his inability to pay s pay such huge amount and requested to ed to reduce the amount, the IIC s IIC stuck to his demand and accordingly, ingly, he went to police station wher n where the IIC instructed him to pay the am the amount by the next day to the A the A.S.I. Finding no other way, being agg ng aggrieved, the said Naba Kumar Kumar Ray intimated the fact to the S.P e S.P Vigilance Division, Balasore lasore requesting him for initiation of a legal a legal action. On 19.07.2023, the A the A.S.I. Pradeep Kumar Mohanty aske y asked the said Naba Kumar Ray r Ray over phone instructing him to come im ome immediately with demanded mo money along with one Johnnie Walker alker Black Label bottle liquor. The t . The telephonic conversation between comp complainant and Pradeep Kumar M mar Mohanty @ Bali Mohanty was recor recorded in his mobile phone. Th ne. The said mobile recording was played layed before the vigilance staff and aff and thereafter the matter having been re een registered in Vigilance P.S. Cas .S. Case No.18 of 2023 and a trap was laid. laid. The ASI of Police, was caught caught red handed while accepting the dema e demanded bribe money amounting unting to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thous Thousand only), investigation com commenced and Charge-Sheet was subm submitted under Section 7 of the PC the PC Act. The Petitioner moved an applica application before the learned Court Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Bala , Balasore under Section 250 of th of the BNSS praying for his discharge. T rge. The learned trial court having aving heard the Parties vide the impugned o gned order dated 19.10.2025, declin declined to grant the prayer. The Petitio Petitioner, being aggrieved thereby, ereby, moved this application, inter alia, on lia, on the ground that the Petitioner itioner has been implicated in the case so ase solely on the basis of the state statement of the ASI Pradeep Kumar M mar Mohanty in absence of any co convincing material against the Petitio Petitioner so also CRLREV No.882 of of 2025 Page 2 of 9 there is no materia aterial in respect to the present Petitioner w ioner with regard to the demand a and and acceptance of bribe, which cons h constitutes the essential ingredien redient for framing of charge under Section Section 7 of P.C. Act can be framed ramed. It is further submitted that the witnes witness Subhendu Kumar Kar (C.S.W (C.S.W-3) has not stated anything incriminat iminating against the Petitioner, and er, and even the complainant has neither ither clearly nor consistently allege alleged that the Petitioner demanded or ac or accepted any bribe from him. 3.
Legal Reasoning
he revisional limited one nner. One of ot be against Court has to f revisional tice ex facie. uestion as to perly and in , it may be ts revisional falls within of charge is gs under the 14. This C down prin jurisdiction of prayer f 228 Cr.P.C his Court in the aforesaid judgement has als principles to be considered for exerci iction under Section 397 particularly in the c ayer for quashing of charge framed under S r.P.C. is sought for as under: has also laid exercise of the context nder Section diction under 27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction “27. Ha Section 482 hese two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Sectio these tw jurisdictional f the Code and the fine line of jurisdi of the r us to enlist istinction, now it will be appropriate for us to distinct h the courts he principles with reference to which the the pri ver, it is not hould exercise such jurisdiction. However, it should ible to state nly difficult but is inherently impossible to only di and upon ith precision such principles. At best and with pr of this Court, bjective analysis of various judgments of this objectiv nciples to be e are able to cull out some of the principles we are jurisdiction, jurisd onsidered for proper exercise of conside charge either particul articularly, with regard to quashing of charge tion 397 or n exercise of jurisdiction under Section 3 in exer CRLREV No.882 of of 2025 Page 6 of 9 ection 482 of the Code or together, as the cas the case may Section be: owers of the 7.1. Though there are no limits of the powers 27.1. T the more the ourt under Section 482 of the Code but the mo Court u on is to be ower, the more due care and caution is power, he power of xercised in invoking these powers. The pow exercise cularly, the quashin uashing criminal proceedings, particularly of the Code harge framed in terms of Section 228 of the charge and with hould be exercised very sparingly and should rest of rare circums ircumspection and that too in the rarest o ases. cases. 7.2. The Court should apply the test as to w 27.2. T the unc he uncontroverted allegations as made fro ecord of the case and the documents sub record herewith prima facie establish the offence or therewi the alle he allegations are so patently absurd and inhe improb mprobable that no prudent person can ever uch a conclusion and where the basic ingredie such a criminal offence are not satisfied then the a crimi ay interfere. may int to whether e from the ts submitted ce or not. If d inherently er reach ngredients of en the Court 7.3. The High Court should not unduly interfe 27.3. Th meticul eticulous examination of the evidence is need onsidering whether the case would end in conv conside r not at the stage of framing of charge or qu or not a f charge. of charg interfere. No is needed for in conviction or quashing 7.9. Another very significant caution that the 27.9. A ave to observe is that it cannot examine the have to vidence and materials on record to dete evidenc hether there is sufficient material on the ba wheth hich the case would end in a conviction; the c which t oncerned primarily with the allegations take concern whole w hole whether they will constitute an offence o, is it an abuse of the process of court lead so, is i njustice. injustic at the courts ne the facts, o determine the basis of ; the court is s taken as a fence and, if rt leading to 27.13. 7.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception ule of continuous prosecution. Where the offe rule of even b ven broadly satisfied, the Court should be inclined nclined to permit continuation of prosecution than its han its quashing at that initial stage. The Court xpected to marshal the records with a view to expecte eption to the he offence is ld be more cution rather Court is not iew to decide CRLREV No.882 of of 2025 Page 7 of 9 dmissibility and reliability of the docume ocuments or admissi acie.” ecords but is an opinion formed prima facie.” records 15. The rev and start inconsisten legally per cognizant o application he revisional court cannot sit as an appellate start appreciating the evidence by findin sistency in the statement of witnesses and it ly permissible. The High Courts ought izant of the fact that trial court was dealing w cation for discharge.” pellate court finding out and it is not ught to be ling with an 7. Having reg ing regard to the submissions made by the by the respective parties and upon p pon perusal of the FIR as well as the statem statements of the witnesses recorded corded during investigation, it clearly eme y emerges that it was the Petitioner er who instructed the concerned ASI o ASI of Police to ensure that the Co the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 50,000 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand on and only) per month for running his liquor sh quor shop. This is in furtherance of ce of the instruction issued by the Petitio Petitioner to the Complainant, call t, calling him to the Police Station and, and, by way of threat, both implic implicit in relation to the running of the bu the business and otherwise, insistin insisting on his demand despite the Com e Complainant’s request for reducti reduction. The conversation between the Pet the Petitioner and the Complainant r inant relating to the demand and its executi xecution through the ASI clearly im rly implicates the Petitioner in the aforesai oresaid case, and his involvement i ment is further evident from the material aterials collected during investigatio stigation. The appreciation of the statemen tements recorded under Section 161 on 161 Cr.P.C., the telephonic conversatio ersation, and the challenge to the c the conduct of the trap are matters of d s of defence and pertain to evidentia identiary evaluation, which cannot be undert undertaken at the harge. stage of discharge 8. In view of iew of the foregoing discussion, and havin having regard to the limited scope o cope of interference at the stage of discharge charge, this Court finds no illegality egality or perversity in the order passed ssed the learned CRLREV No.882 of of 2025 Page 8 of 9 Special Judge, Vig e, Vigilance, Balasore in T.R. Case No.1 of o.1 of 2025. The Petitioner shall ac all accordingly face trial and is at liberty iberty to urge all grounds available ilable to him in accordance with law during during the course of the proceeding edings. The CRLREV, being devoid of m of merit, stands dismissed. I.A., if
Arguments
Mr. Mudul Muduli, learned counsel for the Petitioner, i oner, in course of the hearing in the in the application, submitted that the Compla omplainant is no way connected wi ted with the alleged demand or acceptance tance of bribe by the ASI Pradeep K eep Kumar Mohanty and as such, his implic implication in the aforesaid offence i fence is based on surmises and conjectures and as such, the impugned orde d order passed by the learned court deserve eserves to be set aside. 4. Mr. Sangra Sangram Das, learned counsel for the State State (Vigilance) on the other hand, hand, vehemently opposed the argument ad ent advanced by the learned couns counsel for the Petitioner and inter alia r alia, drew the attention of this C this Court to the FIR. He further submitt ubmitted that the statement of the the Complainant and other witnesses in co s in course of the investigation clear clearly discloses the Petitioner to be the k e the king pin of the said demand, w and, who accepted the bribe through the AS the ASI. The very allegations made i ade in the FIR to the effect that the Petiti Petitioner called the Complainant inant to the police station and demande manded the said amount of Rs.50,0 s.50,000/- to be paid to him every month an nth and in sequel to the same, direct directed to comply the same through the AS the ASI. It is tell- tale clear not only t only from the FIR but also from the statem statement of the CRLREV No.882 of of 2025 Page 3 of 9 Complainant in co t in course of the investigation. He further further submitted that the very cont y contentions of the learned counsel for the for the Petitioner that the fact that t that there is no material against the Petiti Petitioner is far from truth. The P The Petitioner, in active collusion with t with the ASI of Police, not only de nly demanded but also accepted the bribe mo ibe money. 5. Having reg ing regard to the submissions made by the by the respective Parties and on per on perusal of the FIR as well as the statem statement of the witnesses recorded corded in course of the investigation candidl andidly discloses that it is the Petitio Petitioner, who instructed the ASI of police police concerned to ensure that the at the Complainant has to pay a sum of R m of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Tho ty Thousand only) per month to run his b his business of liquor shop. This i This is in furtherance of his instruction passe n passed on to the Complainant, calli t, calling him to the Police Station under thre er threat not only by a gesture being being running the business but otherwise stic ise sticking to his spite demand despite the request made by the Petiti Petitioner. The conversation betw between the Petitioner and the Compla omplainant with regard to the dem e demand and execution of the direction t ction through the ASI clearly implic implicates him in the aforesaid case. 6. In this con is context, reference may be made to the ju the judgment of the Hon’ble Supr Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs s. Dilipsingh Kishorsingh Rao Rao, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 12 SC 1294, held as follows, laying down the guiding principles pertain ertaining to the Court’s jurisdiction diction while considering an application for on for discharge “11. The de at the stage expression Cr.P.C. is t if any, prod give any rig The defence of the accused is not to be looke stage when the accused seeks to be discharge ssion “the record of the case” used in Sectio .C. is to be understood as the documents and a y, produced by the prosecution. The Code do any right to the accused to produce any docum looked into charged. The Section 227 and articles, ode does not document at CRLREV No.882 of of 2025 Page 4 of 9 the stage of accused is t investigatin tage of framing of the charge. The submission sed is to be confined to the material produced tigating agency. ission of the duced by the 12. The pri charge is th at this stag need not b earlier deci Nath Thap Mohan La of evaluati framing of facie case. charge, the the existen offence all probative v whether the conviction he primary consideration at the stage of fram e is the test of existence of a prima-facie cas is stage, the probative value of materials on not be gone into. This Court by referring r decisions in the State of Maharashtra Vs hapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of M Lal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the aluation to be made by the court at the st ing of the charge is to test the existence of case. It is also held at the stage of fram e, the court has to form a presumptive opin existence of factual ingredients constitutin ce alleged and it is not expected to go dee ative value of the material on record and to her the material on record would certainly l iction at the conclusion of trial. f framing of cie case, and ls on record erring to its a Vs. Som of MP Vs. ld the nature the stage of ce of prima- framing of opinion to stituting the go deep into nd to check ainly lead to 13. The po Section 397 to call for a the purpos regularities The object or an error has crept i refer to the Ramesh C Section 39 explained a The power and jurisdiction of Higher Court on 397 Cr.P.C. which vests the court with the ll for and examine records of an inferior cour urposes of satisfying itself as to the legali arities of any proceeding or order made in a object of this provision is to set right a patent error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity rept in such proceedings. It would be appo to the judgment of this court in Amit Kapo h Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460 where sco on 397 has been considered and suc ined as under: Court under ith the power r court is for legality and de in a case. patent defect ersity which apposite to apoor Vs. ere scope of succinctly 12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court w “12. Se ower to call for and examine the records power nferior court for the purposes of satisfying it inferior o the legality and regularity of any proceedi to the l order m rder made in a case. The object of this provi o set right a patent defect or an error of jurisd to set r r law. There has to be a well-founded error or law. ay not be appropriate for the court to scrutin may no rders, which upon the face of it bears a to orders, areful consideration and appear to be in acco careful ith law. If one looks into the various judgme with law ourt with the cords of an ying itself as oceedings or provision is f jurisdiction error and it scrutinise the s a token of n accordance judgments of CRLREV No.882 of of 2025 Page 5 of 9 this Co his Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisd an be invoked where the decisions under cha can be re grossly erroneous, there is no complianc are gro he provisions of law, the finding recorded is the pro n no evidence, material evidence is igno on no is exercised arbitrari udicial discretion judicial versely. These are not exhaustive classes, b pervers erely indicative. Each case would have merely etermined on its own merits. determi l jurisdiction er challenge pliance with ded is based ignored or bitrarily or sses, but are have to be that 13. Ano 3. Another well-accepted norm is that the rev urisdiction of the higher court is a very limite jurisdic nd cannot be exercised in a routine manner. O and can the inbu he inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be a n interim or interlocutory order. The Court an inte the exercise of rev in mind i eep keep urisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex jurisdic here the Court is dealing with the question Where hether the charge has been framed properly whethe accorda ccordance with law in a given case, it m reluctan eluctant to interfere in exercise of its rev urisdiction unless the case substantially falls jurisdic he categories aforestated. Even framing of ch the cate a much much-advanced stage in the proceedings und rPC.” CrPC.”
Decision
, if any, also stands disposed of. (Chittaranjan Da n Dash) Judge Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 11-Dec-2025 17:05:57 CRLREV No.882 of of 2025 Page 9 of 9