Adg of Criminal Investigation Deptt.,Crime Branch,Odisha Vs Nagen Kumar Barik

In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the orders dated 25.11.2024 and 10.01.2025 passed by the Opposite Party No.2/State Human Rights Commission in Case No.711 of 2022.

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Learned counsel for the State/Petitioners submits that Petitioners have challenged the impugned orders dated 25.11.2024 and 10.01.2025 passed by the Odisha Human Rights Commission in Case No. 711 of 2022. By the said orders, the learned Commission has directed personal appearance of the Superintendent of Police,

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Apr-2026 19:07:53

¶19

Page 1 of 8

¶20

2

¶21

CID Crime Branch, and has called upon him to show cause as to why appropriate recommendations should not be made against him for alleged deliberate non-cooperation in the proceedings pending before the Commission.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State/Petitioners further submits that the Opposite Party No.1 had submitted a petition on 13.11.2020 before the Superintendent of Police, CID, Crime Branch, through the Inspector, Cyber Crime alleging commission of a cyber-fraud to the tune of ₹34,99,420/- by certain unknown persons. It was alleged that the said fraud was perpetrated under the false pretext of providing employment as Legal Associates in India for Britannia Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. After receipt of the said petition, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the CID, Crime Branch. Upon completion of the inquiry and finding prima facie materials, the same was culminated in registration of CID, CB Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 31 dated 22.12.2021 for commission offences punishable under Sections 419/420/465/ 468/ 471/ 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State/Petitioners further contends that during the course of investigation of the aforesaid case, it was revealed by the Investigating Officer that the Opposite Party No.1 had transferred a sum of ₹34,99,240/- from his bank accounts

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Apr-2026 19:07:53

¶26

Page 2 of 8

¶27

3

¶28

bearing A/C Nos. 09101010100200455 and 920020055225969 (Axis Bank), as well as from the accounts of one M. Praveen Kumar, bearing A/C No. 31478590460 (State Bank of India) and A/C No. 032410100050057 (Union Bank of India), during the period from 12.08.2020 to 10.11.2020. She further submits that the said amounts were transferred to as many as 18 different back accounts spread across 11 separate banks. The concerned banks were requested to furnish detailed statements of all the bank accounts involved in the transactions. Upon receipt of the replied from the respective banks, the account statements were carefully scrutinized and analyzed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the Petitioners/State further contends that upon verification of the KYC details linked with the said bank accounts, three accused persons named Bidhan Bhattacharya, Ratan Das and Awdhesh Kumar were identified whose locations were found to be in the States of West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh and necessary action against the said accused persons has been taken in accordance with law. She further submits that during the course of investigation and scrutiny of the statements of five bank accounts received from different banks, it was revealed that an amount of ₹6,29,797.62/- had been kept on hold by the banks against a total transferred amount of ₹3,48,040/-. It is further submitted that this Court vide order dated 04.11.2022 passed in

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Apr-2026 19:07:53

¶32

Page 3 of 8

¶33

4

¶34

CRLREV No. 443/2022 preferred by the Opposite PartyNo.1, was pleased to direct the authorities to take necessary steps for release of ₹3,48,040/- in favour of the complainant, subject to submission of an indemnity bond and furnishing of property security of the like amount. Pursuant thereto, the learned JMFC, Cuttack, vide order dated 10.11.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 133/2022, directed issuance of necessary instructions to the concerned bank for release of the said amount. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, Letter No.32 dated 18.01.2023 was issued to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, requesting transfer of ₹ 3,48,040/- from A/c No. 0341108076483 (standing in the name of Mithilesh) to A/c No. 091010100200455 of the Opposite Party No.1/Sri Nagen Kumar Barik.

¶35

The investigation was still in progress. The amount kept on hold by the banks had already been transferred to the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 instituted a proceeding before the Odisha Human Rights Commission, which was registered as Case No. 711 of 2022. The Commission, upon taking cognizance of the matter, was pleased to issue notice to the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Crime Branch, directing him to cause an inquiry into the allegations and to submit a detailed report, vide order dated 25.04.2022. Pursuant to the submission of a detailed report before the learned Commission in compliance

¶36

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Apr-2026 19:07:53

¶37

Page 4 of 8

¶38

5

¶39

with the order dated 25.04.2022, the Commission, vide order dated 26.05.2022, further directed appearance of the Investigating Officer on 27.06.2022. In compliance thereof, the Investigating Officer, Smt. Jhelam Jena, OPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Crime Branch, appeared before the Commission on the said date along with the up-to-date Case Diaries and relevant documents.

¶40

Learned counsel for the Petitioners/State further contends that the Investigating Officer could not remain present before the learned Commission on certain dates due to her official engagement. The Investigating Officer was deputed on official assignments to Hyderabad and, thereafter, to Jagatsinghpur in connection with an inquiry into the death of a Class IX student. Therefore, she was unable to appear before the Commission. The same was duly intimated by the Superintendent of Police, CID, Crime Branch, vide communications dated 28.11.2023 and 19.02.2024, requesting dispensation of her personal appearance on 30.11.2023 and 20.02.2024.

¶41

10.It is further submitted that since the Investigating Officer was deputed on official investigation work, she was unable to remain present and, accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, CID, Crime Branch, sought adjournment by apprising the Commission of the said circumstances. However, without considering the

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Apr-2026 19:07:53

¶44

Page 5 of 8

¶45

6

¶46

intimation regarding the multifarious official duties and constraints of both the Investigating Officer and the Superintendent of Police, the Commission again directed for their personal appearance on 14.02.2025 and 21.03.2025.

¶47

11.Learned counsel for the Petitioners/State relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad and Ors .¹ has held as under:

¶48

“44.Enriched by the valuable insights shared in discussions with my esteemed colleagues Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, we have framed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) specifically addressing the appearance of government officials before the courts. At its core, this SOP emphasizes the critical need for courts to exercise consistency and restraint. It aims to serve as a guiding framework, steering courts away from the arbitrary and frequent summoning of government officials and promoting maturity in their functioning.”

¶49

Similarly, the Apex Court in case of Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab² has held that;

¶50

“17. The Commission is also a body sui juris created under an Act made by Parliament for examining and investigating the questions and complaints relating to violation of human rights, as also the negligence on the part of any public servant in preventing such violations .”

¶51

13.Learned counsel for the Petitioners/State further contends that the impugned observation of the Commission to the effect that the Investigating Officer and the Superintendent of Police are

¶52

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Apr-2026 19:07:53

¶53

Page 6 of 8

¶54

7

¶55

deliberately avoiding appearance and seeking dispensation of personal attendance on one pretext or another is wholly arbitrary, unfounded and contrary to the materials on record. There has been no willful disobedience or deliberate non-compliance on the part of the Petitioners at any point of time.

¶56

14.The Opposite Party No.1 appears in person submits that the challenging the order dated 25.11.2024 and 10.01.2025 passed by the learned Commission, this Writ Petition has been filed. During pendency of this Writ Petition, neither the I.O. nor the S.P. had produced the case record before the learned Commission. He further submits that he being the victim of cyber fraud has lost a sum of Rs.35,99,440/-.

¶57

15.Opposite Party No.1 further submits that the Petitioners having been the investigating agency under the State Government have no right to claim in the prayer portion for a direction to dismiss the HRC Case No.711 of 2022. The Petitioners are delaying the investigation process.

¶58

16.The Opposite Party No.1 further contends that Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission is empowered to recommend the payment of compensation or damage to the concerned Government or authority where the inquiry has disclosed the Commission of a violation of Human Right or negligence in the prevention of a violation of Human

¶59

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Apr-2026 19:07:53

¶60

Page 7 of 8

¶61

8

¶62

Rights or abetment. In that view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is a nullity in law. Hence, the present Writ Petition may be rejected with cost.

¶63

17.In such view of the matter and considering the submission made by the parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer made by the Petitioners/State. However, the Superintendent of Police-cum-PIO, CID (CB), Odisha is directed to appear before the State Human Rights Commission on the date of listing of the case without fail, failing which the Commission is empowered to take punitive action against the said Officer.

¶64

18.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶65

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶66

Murmu

¶67

Signature Not Verified

¶68

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Apr-2026 19:07:53

¶69

Page 8 of 8

Adg of Criminal Investigation Deptt.,Crime Branch,Odisha v. Nagen Kumar Barik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adg of Criminal Investigation Deptt.,Crime Branch,Odisha v. Nagen Kumar Barik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Om Parivahan Pvt. Ltd.,Kolkata Vs State of Odisha

Rohit Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Tulasiram Harijan Vs State of Odisha

M.D. Aslam Vs State of Odisha

Sahadev Behera Vs N.B.S. Rajput,Ias

Rama Chandra Sahu Vs N.B.S. Rajput,Ias