The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2783 of 2021, CRLMC Nos.1685 and 2063 of 2022, CRLMC Nos.1323 and 4994 of 2023 & CRLMC Nos.3967 and 4103 of 2024 (In the matters of applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) CRLMC No.2783 of 2021 Rikhiram Chandrakar …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, Senior Advocate Mr. B. S. Dasparida, Advocate Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate Mr. M. K. Agrawalla, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, Additional Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department) CRLMC No.1685 of 2022 Pramod Kumar Biswal …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, Senior Advocate Mr. B. S. Dasparida, Advocate Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate Mr.K. Mohanty, Advocate Mr. M. K. Agrawalla, Advocate Page 1 of 30 Mr. A. Ray, Advocate Mr. A. Pradhan, Advocate Ms. S. S. Lenka, Advocate For Opposite Part : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, Additional Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department) CRLMC No.2063 of 2022 Gopal Chandra Bisoi …. Petitioner State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Party -versus- For Petitioner : Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, Senior Advocate Ms. R. Dhal, Advocate Mr. B. S. Dasparida, Advocate Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate Mr. K. Mohapatra, Advocate Mr. M. K. Agrawalla, Advocate Mr. A. Ray, Advocate Mr. A. Pradhan, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, Additional Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department) CRLMC No.1323 of 2023 Manoj Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Party For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, Senior Advocate Page 2 of 30 Mr. B. S. Dasparida, Advocate Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate Mr. M. K. Agrawalla, Advocate Mr. A. Ray, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, Additional Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department) CRLMC No.4994 of 2023 Surath Chandra Mallick …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. P. K. Behera, Advocate Mr. N. Jena, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, Additional Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department) CRLMC No.3967 of 2024 Sumanta Paikaray …. Petitioner State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Party -versus- For Petitioner : Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, Senior Advocate Mr. B. S. Dasparida, Advocate Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate Mr.K. Mohanty, Advocate Mr. M. K. Agrawalla, Advocate Mr. A. Ray, Advocate Page 3 of 30 For Opposite Party : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, Additional Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department) CRLMC No.4103 of 2024 Dr. Debabrata Mohanty …. Petitioner State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Opposite Party -versus- For Petitioner : Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, Senior Advocate Mr. N. Rath, Advocate Mr. A. Nayak, Advocate Mr. S. J. Prakash, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, Additional Standing Counsel (Vigilance Department) CORAM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 13.12.2024 :: Date of Judgment:10.04.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. In the present batch of matters, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution initiated against them solely on the ground that they have been exonerated in the departmental proceeding initiated against them on the selfsame allegations, hence, the prosecution cannot proceed with the criminal Page 4 of 30 cases against them. The common question of law regarding the applicability of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the fact scenario of the present cases is the point of determination in the present batch of cases. Therefore, all the matters are heard
Decision
analogously and by a common judgment, they are disposed of. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts of all the cases in brevity are enumerated as preface to the Judgement. In CRLMC No.2783 of 2021 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated in Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.27 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.15 of 2017 (Vigilance), pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner, namely, Rikhiram Chandrakar while working as the Welfare Extension Officer as well as the Nodal Officer of Badakumari Gram Panchayat under the Umerkote Block, he along with other ineligible beneficiaries have illegally availed houses by producing fake photographs and false verification report and misappropriated the Government funds under the Indira Awas Yojana (I.A.Y.) as per the recommendations of Kedar Page 5 of 30 Nath Nayak and Jeturam Majhi. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed on 27.12.2021 after obtaining sanction on 17.11.2021 from the competent authority. Thereafter, the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 13(2)r/w13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act read with Sections 468/471/406/420/120-B of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. It is alleged that after submission of charge-sheet and taking cognizance, the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental proceeding wherein the evidences collected by the prosecution have not been considered and the vital prosecution witnesses have not been examined. Thereafter, the concerned administrative department, i.e., the Director, SC & ST Development and Welfare Department vide order dated 03.04.2024 has directed for de novo enquiry of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner. Hence, this case. In CRLMC No.1685 of 2022 3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated in the F.I.R. dated 27.08.2009 in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.32 of 2009 corresponding to T.R. No.48 of 2017, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Dhenkanal. Page 6 of 30 4. The petitioner, namely, Pramod Kumar Biswal while working as J.E. of Sadar Block, Dhenkanal during the year 2004-05 along with two others have misappropriated Rs.1,75,000/- by preparing false bills and forged documents showing execution of a cement concrete road from Mangalpur Satyabadi High School to Mangalpur U.P. School under the scheme of Sampurna Gramina Rojgar Yojana (S.G.R.Y. Scheme). After obtaining sanction, charge-sheet was submitted on 31.10.2012 and cognizance was taken by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sections 468/420/409/ 120-B of the IPC on 25.02.2013 against the petitioner. It is apposite to mention that the petitioner has been exonerated in departmental proceeding in 2020. On the basis of such exoneration order the petitioner is seeking quashment of the criminal case. In CRLMC No.2063 of 2022 5. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.02 of 2009 corresponding to T.R. Case No.01 of 2020, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Angul. Page 7 of 30 6. The petitioner, namely, Gopal Chandra Bisoi being the public servant as Assistant Director of Factories and Boilers, Angul Zone during the year 1986-2009 had possessed disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.80,11,074.96/- in his name and in the name of his wife, who has allegedly abated him in acquisition of the assets in her name claiming false sources of income. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and his wife on 29.06.2019 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act,1988 and Section 109 of the I.P.C. Since the petitioner had already retired from the service by the time charge-sheet was submitted and there was no need of sanction to prosecute against him. Therefore, without sanction cognizance of offences has been taken. However, the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was concluded with a punishment of warning, i.e., the petitioner is hereby warned to conduct himself in a disciplined manner and be careful in future. Thus, he was not exonerated on merit. The finding recorded in the departmental proceeding has been made the cause for quashment of the criminal case. Page 8 of 30 In CRLMC No.1323 of 2023 7. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.02 of 2015 corresponding to T.R. Case No.17 of 2022 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore. 8. The petitioner, namely, Manoj Kumar Sahoo while working as Junior Technician in Tihidi Electrical Sub-Division under NESCO, Bhadrak, allegedly misappropriated the amount to the tune of Rs.5,66,000/- within the period from 05.10.2013 to 22.11.2014. After completion of investigation and obtaining sanction from the competent authority, charge-sheet has been filed U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sections 409/477-A/120-B of IPC against the petitioner and other co-accused persons on 31.05.2022 and trial is going on. Departmental proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner assailed the instant criminal proceeding on the basis of the inquiry report in the departmental proceeding by which he has been exonerated. In CRLMC No.4994 of 2023 9. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.55 Page 9 of 30 of 2011 corresponding to V.G.R. Case No.55 of 2011 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack. 10. The petitioner, namely, Surath Chandra Mallick being a public servant was found possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.15,79,895/- during the check period and his wife alleged to have abated the petitioner in possessing the assets in her name having no sources of income by filing false income tax return etc. After conclusion of investigation and obtaining the order of sanction for prosecution from the competent authority, charge-sheet U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 109 of IPC has been filed on 07.11.2023 against the petitioner and his wife. The departmental proceeding has also initiated against the petitioner. Exoneration in departmental proceeding has been made cause to file this petition. In CRLMC No.3967 of 2024 11. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.54 of 2019 corresponding to V.G.R. Case No.21 of 2019 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur. 12. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, the petitioner, namely, Sumanta Paikaray while working as Section Supervisor of OFDC Page 10 of 30 Limited, Jharsuguda (C-KL) Sub-Division, Badmal, demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.16,000/- from the complainant for preparing challan and T.T. permit and allowing load of firewood from OFDC Limited, Badmal Depot, Jharsuguda. It is alleged that the petitioner was trapped on the spot and the tainted bribe money was recovered from his possession. After completion of investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution, charge-sheet has been filed on 13.10.2020. Subsequent thereto, the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/s.7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 against the petitioner on 02.07.2021. However, the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings; therefore, he seeks quashing of the criminal case relying upon the findings of departmental proceedings. In CRLMC No.4103 of 2024 13. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in V.G.R. Case No.43 of 2009 corresponding to T.C. No.162 of 2013 arising out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.43 of 2009, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Baripada. 14. The petitioner, namely, Dr. Debabrata Mohanty being the Senior Surveyor of Mines, Baripada, in connivance with other Mining Page 11 of 30 Officers abused his official position and shown undue official favour to the lease holders as well as the Power of Attorney Holders and allowed them to illegally excavate the iron ore of 1,88,484.440 MT beyond the leasehold area and thereby cheated the government fund by fabricating records to the tune of Rs.21,60,56,217/-. After obtaining sanction, the charge-sheet was submitted on 17.03.2011 and cognizance was taken by the learned trial Court on 10.01.2012. It is also alleged that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CRLMC No.1661 of 2012 against the cognizance order seeking quashing of the entire proceeding. However, the same was dismissed. Again the petitioner by filing CRLREV No.518 of 2017, challenged the order of rejection of discharge petition on 20.07.2017. The same was also not entertained by this Court as by that time charge had already been framed. Again the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CRLREV No.365 of 2018 which was disposed of on 15.02.2019 giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all such contentions at the time of trial before the court below. In the case as well petitioner is relying upon the Departmental inquiry findings to press his prayer for quashing the FIR. Page 12 of 30 Submissions 15. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the central issue for determination in the present cases is whether the exoneration of an accused in departmental proceedings, having been concluded, criminal proceedings based on the same set of facts should be allowed to continue or not. The learned counsel further argued as to whether such proceedings should be deemed an abuse of the process of the Court and a wastage of judicial time. In advancing this argument, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have relied on three judgments passed by a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court: Radheshyam Kejriwal V. State of West Bengal1, State (NCT of Delhi) V. Ajay Kumar Tyagi2 and Ashoo Surendranath Tewari V. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr.3. 16. In the context of the judgment in Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra), the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while discerning adjudication proceedings vis-à-vis criminal prosecution has outlined the following distinctive yardstick: -