Prasanna Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha(Vig.) — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Prasanna Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha(Vig.) — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the Petitioner to approach the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar with a copy of this order; the Special Judge to consider the matter keeping in view the FRT submitted due to insufficient evidence within four weeks from production of the certified copy of the order. The quashing prayer was not adjudicated on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceeding in V.G.R. No.2/16 (arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.2 dated 11.01.2016, offences under S.13(2) read with S.13(1)(c)(d) P.C.Act) pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar should be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

This Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to approach the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar along with a copy of the order.

Key takeaways

On the Petitioner approaching the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar with a copy of the order, the Special Judge shall consider the matter keeping in view the FRT submitted due to insufficient evidence within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (A.K. Mohapatra, J.), by order dated 25.09.2025 in CRLMC No.798 of 2025, disposed of a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Prasanna Kumar Sahoo seeking quashing of the entire proceeding in V.G.R. No.2/16 pending before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No.2 dated 11.01.2016 for offences under section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C.Act, founded on allegations of misappropriation of Rs.6,18,915/- through sub-standard excavation of a new pond at village Giridipali, district Nayagarh. Investigation stood concluded with a Final Report (FRT) submitted on 31.12.2019 due to insufficiency of evidence, pending acceptance; the informant, though sufficiently noticed, had filed no protest petition and several adjournments had been granted liberally. Without adjudicating the quashing prayer on merits, the Court granted the Petitioner liberty to approach the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar with a copy of the order and directed the Special Judge to consider the matter keeping in view the FRT submitted due to insufficient evidence within four weeks from production of the certified copy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.798 of 2025

Prasanna Kumar Sahoo

..... Appellant

Represented By Adv. - Amit Prasad Bose

-versus-

State Of Odisha(vig.)

.....

Respondent Represented By Adv. -

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER

25.09.2025

Order No.

06.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

Learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr.S.Das, learned Standing Counsel for Vigilance department. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.

By filing the present CRLMC application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the entire proceeding in V.G.R. No.2/16 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar which corresponds to Vigilance P.S.Case No.2 dated 11.01.2016 for alleged commission of offence under section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C.Act.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the aforesaid Vigilance F.I.R. was lodged

Page 1 of 3.

making allegation against the Petitioner for misappropriation of public money to the tune of Rs.6,18,915/- by executing substandard work i.e. excavation of new pond in village Giridipali in the district of Nayagarh. He further submitted that in the meantime investigation has been concluded and due to insufficient evidence FRT has been submitted. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that although FRT was submitted on 31.12.2019, however the same has not been taken up for consideration by the learned trial court, as a result of which the Petitioner is suffering.

Learned Standing Counsel for Vigilance department on instruction from the Inspector, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar dated 10.03.2025 submitted before this Court that after completion of investigation FRT has been submitted on 31.12.2019 due to insufficient of evidence and as such FRT is pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar for acceptance. He further contended that the matter has been posted for appearance of the complainant/informant for filing of protest petition.

In reply to the aforesaid contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Vigilance Department, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that although notice has been made sufficient on the complainant/informant, however no protest petition has been filed as of now and several adjournments have been granted liberally by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar.

In view of the aforesaid position, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the learned Special Judge,

Page 2 of 3.

Vigilance, Bhubaneswar along with a copy of this order. In such eventuality, learned Special Judge shall consider the same keeping in view the FRT submitted due to insufficient evidence within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observation, the CRLMC stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

RKS

Page 3 of 3.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-Sep-2025 13:46:21