Dismissed

Prasanta Kumar Das v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

Orissa HC2 Feb 2023CRLMC/148/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMC petition challenging vigilance court's final report. Applicant argued no material evidence collected; Court noted service dispute nature, final report status, and pending complaint below. Held no direction for further investigation warranted; dispossession of petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pursue the complaint pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar arising out of VGR No.04 of 2021.

Prasanta Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha(Vig.) — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 148 of 2023

¶3

Prasanta Kumar Das

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Achyutananda Pattanaik, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha (Vigilance) and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Niranjan Moharana, ASC for Vigilance for OP Nos.1 to 3

¶9

Mr. Prasanta Kumar Satapathy, Advocate for OP Nos.5 and 6 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 02.02.2023

¶10

Order No.

¶11

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶13

Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner challenging the final report dated 25^th July 2022 submitted by opposite party No.2 seeking a consequential direction for further investigation in connection with Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.04 of 2021 corresponding to VGR No.04 of 2021 pending in the file of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar.

¶14

Perused the copy of the FIR at Annexure-1.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been illegality committed in the promotion of private opposite parties and in that connection, the FIR i.e. Annexure-1 was lodged by the Vigilance Department on the direction of this Court. It is further submitted that the investigation by the Vigilance Department was not conducted properly, as a result of which, it led to the submission of final report which has also been accepted by the

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

learned court below. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the material evidence was not collected by the Vigilance Department during such investigation and hence, there is a need of further investigation and the learned court below did commit serious illegality in accepting the final report so submitted in connection with Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.4 of 2021.

¶18

Mr.Moharana, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department submits that it is a service related dispute which has been raised by one of the unsuccessful candidate’s husband and ultimately, after investigation by the Vigilance Department, since no material was found, the final report was submitted and in the meantime, the protest petition was received from the petitioner and pending before the learned court below for further course of action. In response to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since learned court below accepted the final report without any justification, therefore, the protest petition was filed and it has been treated as a complaint and now pending adjudication and for further hearing.

¶19

Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.5 and 6 supported the contention of Mr.Moharana, learned ASC for Vigilance Department and submits that after due investigation, the final report was submitted and hence, no case was made out and therefore, there is no need of further investigation to be ordered since in the meantime, a complaint is received from the petitioner by the learned court below.

¶20

It is apprised to the Court that the petitioner availed other remedies invoking writ jurisdiction and judgment in one of such cases has been confirmed in appeal.

¶21

Considering the above facts and since after investigation, the Vigilance Department has submitted the final report and the same is said to have been accepted by the Vigilance Department and

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

as in the meantime, the protest petition has been filed, the Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need of any direction for further investigation in the matter. Since the petitioner has already approached the court below and files a complaint in the shape of protest petition and as it is claimed that the said complaint is not yet accepted but pending consideration, the Court is also of the view that he can pursue the same for a decision as per and in accordance with law. In other words, the Court does not find any reason to intervene and interfere with the final report so submitted by the Vigilance Department.

¶24

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶25

In the result, the CRLMC stands disposed of leaving the petitioner to pursue the complaint pending before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar arising out of VGR No.04 of 2021.

¶26

U.K.Sahoo

¶27

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Prasanta Kumar Das v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanta Kumar Das v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biprabar Bai Vs State of Odisha

Prafulla Chandra Mishra Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Sambit Kumar Das@Lipu@Samiti Das Vs State of Odisha

Ramakanta Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Bishoyi@Rabi Bishoyi Vs State of Odisha

Shakti Prasad Samal Vs State of Odisha