Page 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No. 5578 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973).

Harekrishna Panda @ Hare Krushna

Panda

…. Petitioner(s)

-versus-

State of Odisha (VIG) …. Opposite Party (s)

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Anup Dash, Adv.

Mr. A. Panda, Adv

For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, SC

for Vigilance Department

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-22.06.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.07.2026

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of

this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising

out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 04 dated 19.01.2019,

corresponding to V.G.R. No. 04 of 2019, pending before the Court of

the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, for the alleged

commission of offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 13(1)(b) of

the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

Page 2

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.01.2019, the Vigilance

authorities received credible information alleging that the

Petitioner, while serving as a public servant, was demanding

and collecting huge illegal gratification at Nirman Soudha,

Bhubaneswar. Upon verification of the information and after

following the prescribed procedure, a Vigilance team was

constituted to intercept the Petitioner.

(ii) On 19.01.2019, at about 2:45 P.M., while the Petitioner was

proceeding in a vehicle from Nirman Soudha, Bhubaneswar

towards his residence, the Vigilance team intercepted the vehicle

in the presence of witnesses. During the interception, a sum of

Rs.3,75,000/- kept in an envelope was recovered from the

vehicle, while a further sum of Rs.14,175/- was recovered from

the personal search of the Petitioner.

(iii) As the Petitioner allegedly failed to satisfactorily explain the

source of the aforesaid amount, Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S.

Case No. 04 dated 19.01.2019 was registered against him for the

alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 7(a)

and 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act,

2018.

(iv) During the course of investigation, the Petitioner explained that

the sum of Rs.3,75,000/- represented advance sale consideration

received from one Saroj Kumar Jena pursuant to an agreement

Page 3

for sale dated 20.11.2018 in respect of Duplex No. 3 situated at

Raghunathpur, Bhubaneswar for a total consideration of

Rs.84,00,000/-. According to the Petitioner, the agreement

contemplated payment of an advance of Rs.10,00,000/- in

instalments, out of which Rs.1,25,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and

Rs.2,00,000/- had been paid on 20.11.2018, 05.12.2018 and

28.12.2018 respectively, while the balance amount of

Rs.3,75,000/- was paid on 19.01.2019. The Petitioner further

stated that the amount of Rs.14,175/- recovered from his

personal search constituted cash withdrawn from his salary for

meeting routine personal expenses. In support of the said

explanation, the Petitioner relied upon the agreement for sale

and the money receipts evidencing the aforesaid payments.

(v) It further transpires from the record that, pursuant to the

interception, searches were conducted at the residential

premises and other places connected with the Petitioner during

the course of investigation. The Petitioner also furnished

documents and explanations before the Investigating Officer in

support of his claim regarding the source of the amounts

recovered during the interception.

(vi) Aggrieved by the registration of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S.

Case No. 04 dated 19.01.2019, corresponding to V.G.R. No. 04 of

2019, and the continuance of the criminal proceedings pending

before the Court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance),

Bhubaneswar, the Petitioner has preferred the present petition.

Page 4

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made

the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Petitioner submitted that the impugned criminal

proceedings are liable to be quashed on account of the

inordinate and unexplained delay in completion of the

investigation. It was contended that although the alleged

interception, search and registration of the F.I.R. took place on

19.01.2019, more than seven years have elapsed, yet the

investigation has not attained finality. According to the

Petitioner, such unreasonable delay infringes his fundamental

right to a speedy investigation and trial guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the

continuance of the criminal proceedings an abuse of the process

of law. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance was

placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pankaj

Kumar v. State of Maharashtra

1

; Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of

Bihar

2

; Sirajul v. State of Uttar Pradesh

3

; Mahendra Lal Das v.

State of Bihar

4

; Santosh De v. Archna Guha

5

; Directorate of

Revenue v. Mohammed Nisar Holia

6

; Kartar Singh v. State of

1

(2008) 16 SCC 117.

2

(2009) 3 SCC 355.

3

(2015) 9 SCC 201.

4

(2002) 1 SCC 149.

5

(1994) 2 SCC 420.

6

(2008) 2 SCC 370.

Page 5

Punjab

7

; Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu

8

; and

Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar

9

to contend

that the right to a speedy trial encompasses every stage of a

criminal prosecution, including investigation, and that

unexplained and inordinate delay, where not attributable to the

accused, violates Article 21 of the Constitution and may, in an

appropriate case, warrant quashing of the criminal proceedings.

(ii) The Petitioner further submitted that the materials collected

during the course of investigation, including the documents

furnished by the Petitioner, clearly demonstrate that no offence

under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption

(Amendment) Act, 2018 is made out. It was contended that the

sum of Rs.3,75,000/- recovered during the interception

represented advance sale consideration received from one Saroj

Kumar Jena pursuant to an agreement for sale dated 20.11.2018,

while the amount of Rs.14,175/- recovered from the Petitioner's

personal search constituted cash withdrawn from his salary for

meeting routine personal expenses. According to the Petitioner,

the aforesaid explanation was duly supported by the agreement

for sale and the money receipts furnished before the

Investigating Officer. It was further submitted that the property

in question had been proposed to be sold after due intimation

to, and with the permission of, the competent authority in

7

(1994) 3 SCC 569.

8

AIR 2023 SC 102.

9

2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511.

Page 6

accordance with the applicable service rules, and had also been

duly disclosed in the Petitioner's property statements submitted

to the Department, thereby lending further support to the

Petitioner's explanation regarding the lawful source of the

intercepted amount.

(iii) It was further submitted that, in view of the aforesaid

explanation and the supporting documents, the amount of

Rs.3,89,175/- recovered during the interception could not be

treated as disproportionate assets so as to attract the ingredients

of Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption

(Amendment) Act, 2018. It was contended that the Petitioner's

lawful sources of income adequately explained the amount

recovered. It was further contended that, although searches

were conducted at the Petitioner's residential premises and

other places immediately after the interception with a view to

ascertain the existence of disproportionate assets, no other

disproportionate assets were found and the F.I.R. came to be

registered solely on the basis of the intercepted amount. It was

also submitted that the valuation of the Petitioner's immovable

assets and expenditure had been arbitrarily exaggerated,

whereas his income and other lawful sources of receipts had

either been ignored or undervalued during the investigation,

resulting in a distorted assessment of his assets. According to

the Petitioner, no prima facie case under Section 13(1)(b) of the

Page 7

Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 is therefore

made out.

(iv) The Petitioner further submitted that the essential ingredients of

the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of

Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 are wholly absent in the

present case. It was contended that there is no written complaint

or allegation by any person alleging that the Petitioner had

demanded or accepted any illegal gratification in connection

with the discharge of any official work. In the absence of any

such allegation, the Petitioner submitted that no prima facie

offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption

(Amendment) Act, 2018 is made out against him.

(v) It was further contended that the Petitioner had, immediately

after the search, furnished a detailed explanation along with

supporting documents before the Investigating Officer

explaining the source of the amounts recovered. Despite

furnishing the agreement for sale, the money receipts, the

affidavit of the proposed purchaser affirming the transaction,

and the permission granted by the competent authority, the

Investigating Officer neither examined the said purchaser nor

duly considered the aforesaid documents during the course of

investigation. According to the Petitioner, the investigation has

proceeded in an arbitrary and unfair manner despite his full

cooperation.

Page 8

(vi) It was further submitted that the impugned F.I.R. pertains only

to the recovery of the intercepted amount of Rs.3,89,175/- and

does not disclose any particulars regarding any other alleged

disproportionate assets. It was contended that neither the F.I.R.

nor the subsequent investigation identifies any detailed

statement or computation of the Petitioner's alleged assets,

income and expenditure so as to enable him to furnish an

explanation. According to the Petitioner, in the absence of any

such material, the prosecution cannot be permitted to continue

the investigation on the mere assumption that disproportionate

assets may subsequently be discovered.

(vii) The Petitioner further submitted that throughout the course of

the investigation, he had extended full cooperation to the

investigating agency by furnishing explanations and supporting

documentary materials relating to the source of the intercepted

amount. It was contended that no material has been placed on

record to attribute the prolonged delay in completion of the

investigation to any act or omission on the part of the Petitioner.

Rather, the delay is solely attributable to the investigating

agency. It was further submitted that the prolonged pendency of

the criminal proceedings has caused serious prejudice to the

Petitioner, adversely affecting his service career, retiral benefits

and reputation, particularly when he is on the verge of

superannuation.

Page 9

(viii) It was submitted that, apart from the unexplained delay in

investigation, the present case also falls within the principles

governing the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High

Court as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana

v. Bhajan Lal

10

. It was contended that, in the absence of the

essential ingredients constituting the alleged offences and in

view of the materials placed by the Petitioner, the continuation

of the investigation and the consequential criminal proceedings

arising out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 04 of 2019

would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

Accordingly, it was urged that this Court, in exercise of its

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, may quash the investigation

and the consequential criminal proceedings in order to secure

the ends of justice.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party earnestly made

the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before

this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine.

(i) It was submitted that, upon interception, recovery of

Rs.3,75,000/- consisting of 44 nos. of Two Thousand G.C. Notes

and 574 nos. of Five Hundred G.C. Notes kept in an envelope,

and further recovery of cash of Rs.14,175/- kept in his money

10

(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335.

Page 10

purse from the conscious possession of the Petitioner, who

failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation with regard to the

same. It was submitted that, thereafter, searches were

conducted at different places connected with the Petitioner to

ascertain the possession of Disproportionate Assets, and on the

basis of the documents seized during such search, prima facie

evidence regarding acquisition of huge properties/‘DA’ in the

name of the Petitioner and his family members was unearthed.

Accordingly, the FIR was registered for commission of offences

under Section 7(a) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention

of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, and the same is under

investigation.

(ii) It was further submitted that the Petitioner had not disclosed

any such plea or source of Rs.3,75,000/- at the time of

interception. Therefore, the explanation subsequently

furnished by the Petitioner is an afterthought and is not

believable.

(iii) It was submitted that, apart from the intercepted amount

mentioned in the instant FIR, the investigation is also being

conducted to ascertain the possession of huge Disproportionate

Assets by the Petitioner beyond his ‘known sources of income’.

It was further submitted that the investigation consumed more

time in collection of documents, materials and evidence from

different quarters, as well as in examination of witnesses.

Page 11

(iv) It was submitted that proceedings of such nature ought not to

be quashed merely on the ground of delay of 7 years and 5

months in completion of investigation, particularly when there

are incriminating materials relating to possession of huge

Disproportionate Assets by the Petitioner. It was further

submitted that the investigation is still continuing and,

therefore, the prayer made by the Petitioner is not sustainable.

(v) Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court

in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

11

,

wherein it was held that when an offence is prima facie made

out from the FIR, the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, should not interfere with the

investigation or quash the criminal proceedings at the nascent

stage.

(vi) It was further submitted that the Supreme Court, in Niranjan

Hemchandra Sashittal and Another v. State of Maharashtra

12

,

has held that the concept of speedy trial is relative in nature

and no fixed time schedule can be prescribed for conclusion of

criminal proceedings. It was observed that the nature of

offence, number of accused, number of witnesses, workload of

the Court and other attending circumstances are required to be

taken into consideration. It was further observed that offences

11

(2021) 19 SCC 401.

12

(2013) 4 SCC 642.

Page 12

relating to conspiracy, misappropriation, fraud, forgery,

acquisition of disproportionate assets by public servants and

corruption cases against high public officials, by their very

nature, may require longer time for investigation and trial.

(vii) It was, therefore, submitted that, in view of the aforesaid

submissions and authoritative pronouncements, the prayer

made in the CRLMC for quashing of the criminal proceedings

against the Petitioner may kindly be dismissed in the interest of

justice.

IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court.

6. The present petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction

of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this

Court is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. However,

such jurisdiction can be exercised where the allegations made in the

F.I.R. and the materials collected during investigation do not disclose

the commission of any offence or where the continuation of the

criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the

Court.

7. The principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been authoritatively laid down by the

Page 13

Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

13

, wherein it was

observed:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various

relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the

principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of

decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power

under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482

of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,

we have given the following categories of cases by way of

illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to

prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to

secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay

down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised

and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an

exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power

should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report

or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any

offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and

other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose

a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police

officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an

order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of

the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or

complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same

do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a

case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a

cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable

offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer

without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under

Section 155(2) of the Code.

13

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

Page 14

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so

absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no

prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is

sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the

provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a

criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a

specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,

providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the

aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with

mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously

instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on

the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and

personal grudge.”

8. In the present case, the prosecution was set into motion on the basis of

the alleged interception of the Petitioner on 19.01.2019 and recovery of

an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- kept in an envelope from the vehicle, along

with Rs.14,175/- recovered from his personal search. The allegation of

the prosecution is that the Petitioner, being a public servant, had

failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the aforesaid amount, and

that subsequent investigation revealed prima facie material regarding

acquisition of disproportionate assets by the Petitioner and his family

members.

9. It is the specific contention of the Petitioner that the amount recovered

during interception cannot be treated as unexplained assets as the

Petitioner has furnished an explanation supported by the agreement

for sale dated 20.11.2018, money receipts evidencing payment of

advance sale consideration, affidavit of the proposed purchaser and

Page 15

permission granted by the competent authority. It has further been

contended that the said property transaction had been disclosed in the

property statements submitted by the Petitioner to his Department.

10. At this stage, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C., this Court is not required to undertake a detailed examination

of the correctness of the defence taken by the Petitioner or appreciate

the evidentiary value of the documents relied upon by him. The

limited question that arises for consideration is whether the

allegations in the F.I.R. and the materials collected during

investigation, taken at their face value, disclose a prima facie case.

11. Insofar as the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of

Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 is concerned, the allegation in the

F.I.R. is that the Petitioner was demanding and collecting illegal

gratification. The Petitioner has disputed the said allegation and

contended that there is no complaint by any person alleging demand

or acceptance of illegal gratification. However, at this stage, the

existence of such material has to be assessed on the basis of the

materials collected during investigation. This Court, while exercising

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is not required to

undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence or determine the

probative value of such material.

12. With regard to the offence under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of

Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, the allegation of the prosecution

relates to the intercepted amount of Rs.3,89,175/- as well as the alleged

acquisition of disproportionate assets by the Petitioner and his family

Page 16

members, which is stated to have come to light during the course of

investigation following the searches. The Opposite Parties have

contended that the investigation is still underway for ascertaining the

assets, income and expenditure of the Petitioner and his family

members. The explanation furnished by the Petitioner regarding the

source of the intercepted amount and the documents relied upon in

support thereof are matters which require examination during the

course of investigation and trial. At this stage, the said explanation

cannot be a ground for this Court to interdict the investigation, in

view of the assertion of the prosecution that further materials

regarding disproportionate assets have emerged during the course of

investigation.

13. This Court is also required to examine the contention advanced by the

Petitioner regarding the delay in completion of investigation. There is

no dispute that the F.I.R. was registered on 19.01.2019 and the

investigation has remained pending for more than seven years. It is

trite that the right to speedy investigation and trial is an integral part

of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, whether the delay

in a particular case amounts to violation of such right depends upon

the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the

offence and the reasons attributable for such delay.

14. In the present case, the allegations relate to offences under the

Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, involving alleged

acquisition of disproportionate assets by a public servant. The

Opposite Parties have asserted that the delay occurred on account of

Page 17

collection of documents and materials, as well as examination of

witnesses from different quarters. Considering the nature of

allegations and the fact that the investigation is stated to be continuing

for ascertaining the alleged disproportionate assets, this Court is not

inclined to hold, at this stage, that the delay in completion of

investigation warrants interference with the criminal proceedings.

15. Further, the contention of the Petitioner that the Investigating Officer

has failed to consider the documents furnished by him, including the

agreement for sale, money receipts, affidavit of the proposed

purchaser and permission granted by the competent authority, also

cannot be examined in detail in the present proceeding. The relevance,

admissibility and evidentiary value of such documents are matters

which require consideration during the course of investigation and

trial.

16. Therefore, having regard to the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and

the nature of offences alleged against the Petitioner, this Court is of

the considered view that the present case does not warrant exercise of

the inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

V. CONCLUSION:

17. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the

investigation and consequential criminal proceedings arising out of

Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 04 dated 19.01.2019,

corresponding to V.G.R. No. 04 of 2019, pending before the Court of

the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar.

18. The CRLMC being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

Page 18

19. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are only for

the purpose of adjudication of the present petition under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. and shall not prejudice either party during the course of

further investigation or trial.

20. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated, the 14

th

July, 2026/