The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3716 of 2022 Puspa Bag State of Odisha(Vig. Dept.) -versus- …. …. Petitioner Ms. A.K.Dei,Advocate Opp. Party Mr. S.K.Dash, Standing counsel for Vigilance Department CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 16.02.2024 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.K.Dash, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The present application has been filed by invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Challenging the entire criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner in T.R. Case No.04/19 of 2016/2013 (arising out of Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.45 of 2010) before the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the present petitioner is the wife of the Government employee, who has been implicated in a case of disproportionate assets. She further contended that the present petitioner has also been implicated as a co- accused with the aid of Section 109 I.P.C. as an Abettor. In course of // 2 // her argument learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are great illegalities while calculating the income of the present petitioner. She further contended that the present petitioner is an income tax assesse and files her return before the income tax authorities. She further contended that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any material showing the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged crime. Particularly with regard to abetment of such crime with the Principal accused who happens to be her husband. It was also contended that since some of the properties stand recorded in the name of the present petitioner she has been arrayed as an accused in this case. In course of her argument, she also referred to the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Pratima Behera V. State of Orissa (Vigilance) reported in 2017 Suppl. OLR 274 Volume 266 2017; also reported in 2017 (66) OLR 22. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a similar case a coordinate bench of this Court has to come to a conclusion that wife cannot be implicated as an accused and she cannot be charge sheeted merely with the aid of Section 109 I.P.C. in the absence of in specific materials implicating the petitioner’s wife in the alleged crime. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed as against the present petitioner. Although, the same may continue against the accused, who is the husband of the present petitioner. 5. Mr. S.Das, learned counsel appearing for the Stading Counsel for the Vigilance Department on the other hand contended that in course of investigation certain properties were found in the name of present petitioner, who is none other than wife of the principal // 3 // accused. He further contended that on the basis of such investigation the present petitioner has been implicated in the present crime and she has also been charge sheeted. 6. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that earlier the petitioner moved an application before the learned Trial Court for her discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar considered the discharge application and, vide order dated 17.03.2022, dismissed the discharge application filed by the petitioner as the same is devoid of merit. Thereafter, the charge was framed and in the meantime six witnesses have already been examined. In such view of the matter, learned standing Counsel further contended that at this belated stage this Court should not interfere by quashing the proceeding and, that the same is not in the larger interest of justice. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that against rejection of discharge petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 17.03.2022 in T.R. Case No.4 of 19 of 2016/2013, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CRLMP No.870 of 2022. The aforesaid CRLMP application was taken up by a Division Bench of this Court. He further contended that vide order dated 23.11.2022 the petitioner was permitted to withdraw such application challenging order dated 17.03.2022. In such view of the matter, learned Standing Counsel submitted that order dated 17.03.2022 has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, this Court observes that the grounds which has been taken in the present application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding were also taken before the learned Trial Court by filing // 4 // the petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. Such petition was rejected by a detailed order dated 17.03.2022. Moreover, order dated 17.03.2022, although was assailed before this Court, however, the petitioner has withdrawn such application before the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the order dated 17.03.2022 has attained finality. With regard to the judgments cited by earned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Pratima Behera V. State of Orissa this Court observes that while delivering the judgment in Pratima Behera’s Case (supra) a coordinate bench of this Court was examining rejection of a discharge petition filed by the accused petitioner before the Court below and while considering such application this Court on the basis of materials on record come to a conclusion that there was no material to implicate the petitioner in that case as an abettor with the aid of Section 109 I.P.C. In such view of the matter, the Coordinate Bench has taken a view that the charge framed against the petitioner is illegal and accordingly the order passed by the Trial Court was set aside. So far the case of the present petitioner is concerned, it is borne out from the record that although the petitioner has filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the same has been rejected by trial court by passing a speaking and reasoned order, such order was assailed before this Court and the same has been withdrawn. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court has attained finality. In such view of the aforesaid factual background this Court has not inclined to entertain the present application. However, it is made clear that it is upon to the petitioner to raise all this grounds before the Trial Court at the time of hearing of the case, including the judgments relied upon by the petitioner and, the same shall be appropriately dealt with by the learned Trial Court for passing the // 5 // final judgment in the trial. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Feb-2024 18:09:32