SRIKANTA KUMAR PAKAL vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 522 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita).
Srikanta Kumar Pakal …. Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha …. Opposite Party (s)
:
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Sr. Adv.
along with associates.
For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-16.04.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-22.05.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1.
The Petitioner, by way of the present petition, has assailed the legality
and validity of F.I.R. No. 756/2025 dated 28.12.2025 registered at
Choudwar Police Station, UPD, Cuttack, along with all consequential
criminal proceedings arising therefrom, instituted for the alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections 223, 352, 353(1)(b),
296 and 66(D) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Section
67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and has prayed for
quashing of the same in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court.
I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE :
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
(i) The in the present case, is stated to be a social activist engaged in
matters concerning public welfare, transparency, and
accountability, and has been actively associated with activities
involving the use of statutory mechanisms, including the Right to
Information Act, for redressal of public grievances and
dissemination of information.
(ii) On 28.12.2025, an F.I.R. bearing No. 756/2025 came to be
registered against the Petitioner at Choudwar Police Station,
UPD, Cuttack, alleging commission of the offences as stated
therein.
(iii) The aforesaid F.I.R. was registered alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 66(D) and 67 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, along with Sections 223, 296,
352, and 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
(iv) The said F.I.R. came to be instituted solely on the basis of a
written report submitted by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which, in
turn, was founded upon an internal police enquiry conducted
vide S.D.E. No. 09 dated 13.11.2025.
(v) The F.I.R. alleges that the Petitioner is habitually involved in
creating public disturbance, uses abusive and unparliamentary
language on social media platforms, frequently criticises
statutory authorities and public bodies, and had allegedly
obstructed public servants in discharge of their official duties
during the construction of a service road along NH-55.
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
(vi) The alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on
13.11.2025, whereas the F.I.R. came to be registered only on
28.12.2025, thereby reflecting an unexplained delay of
approximately 45 days in setting the criminal law into motion.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner
has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present
CRLMC Application seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law.
II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE P ETITIONER :
3.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Sr.
Advocate earnestly made the following submissions in support of his
contentions:
(i) The case of the Petitioner is that the impugned F.I.R. No. 756/2025
has been lodged suo motu by the Police Authorities. It is
contended that the Inspector-in-Charge of Choudwar Police
Station directed his subordinate officer to enquire into an
allegation reflected in Station Diary Entry No. 09 dated
13.11.2025, and pursuant thereto, the present F.I.R. came to be
registered against the Petitioner.
(ii) The Petitioner further contends that the impugned F.I.R. is a
classic instance of vague, omnibus, and bald allegations,
inasmuch as it broadly accuses the Petitioner of creating public
disturbances, instigating protests, and obstructing the
construction work of the NH-55 service road for alleged personal
gain, without specifying any overt act attributable to the
Petitioner. It is further submitted that although allegations have
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
been made regarding use of “abusive and unparliamentary
language” against public officials and statutory institutions on
social media platforms, the F.I.R. does not reproduce or identify
any specific statement, post, expression, or material so as to
prima facie substantiate such accusations.
(iii) The Petitioner contends that in the absence of any “corpus” i.e.,
the actual words, text, or alleged electronic content purportedly
used, the invocation of Sections 66(D) and 67 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 is ex facie unsustainable in law. It is
submitted that without clear disclosure of the offending material
or specific attribution of the alleged electronic communication,
the essential ingredients of the said offences are not made out,
rendering the continuation of the criminal proceedings legally
untenable.
(iv) The Petitioner submits that Section 66D of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 contemplates impersonation by
personation through communication devices or computer
resources, whereas, in the present case, even as per the
prosecution version, the alleged posts were made from the
Petitioner’s own identifiable and public social media account, and
there is no allegation whatsoever of impersonation or assuming
the identity of another person.
(v) It is further contended that invocation of Section 67 of the
Information Technology Act is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as
mere criticism, however strong or uncomfortable, of public
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
institutions or authorities cannot, by any stretch of interpretation,
be equated with “obscene” material within the meaning of the
said provision, which is confined to content that is lascivious,
appeals to prurient interest, or has the tendency to deprave and
corrupt persons likely to read, see, or hear the same.
(vi) The Petitioner further submits that the essential ingredients of the
offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are
wholly absent in the present case. It is contended that there is no
specific promulgated order or lawful direction alleged to have
been violated by the Petitioner so as to attract Section 223 of the
BNS. Likewise, there is no allegation of any physical act, gesture,
or performance of any song or similar act in a public place which
could possibly bring the case within the ambit of Section 296 of
the BNS.
(vii) It is further contended that the Petitioner, being an RTI activist, is
entitled to exercise his right to freedom of speech and expression
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which includes
the right to criticise statutory authorities in good faith. In the
absence of any allegation of incitement to violence or creation of
public disorder, mere expression of dissent or alleged “distrust”
towards public institutions cannot, by itself, amount to public
mischief so as to attract Section 353(1)(b) of the BNS.
(viii) The Petitioner submits that there exists an unexplained delay of
approximately 45 days in the registration of the F.I.R., inasmuch
as the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
13.11.2025, whereas the F.I.R. came to be instituted only on
28.12.2025. It is contended that such inordinate and unexplained
delay in setting the criminal law into motion, in the absence of
any satisfactory explanation, casts serious doubt on the
genuineness and credibility of the allegations levelled against the
Petitioner.
(ix) The Petitioner further contends that the police machinery has
been set into motion at the behest of the Odisha Information
Commission pursuant to an order passed in Second Appeal No.
898 of 2023. It is submitted that the Commission, being a
statutory authority vested with adequate legal powers to initiate
appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in the event of
any allegedly injurious or defamatory statement made against it,
could have availed itself of remedies expressly provided under
the statutory framework.
(x) However, instead of resorting to such lawful remedies, the
alleged direction for police intervention is stated to be actuated
by mala fides and is an abuse of process, intended to penalize the
Petitioner while simultaneously insulating the complainant
and/or informant from lawful scrutiny.
III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTIES :
4. Per contra , the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties (State), Ms.
Gayatri Patra, ASC earnestly made the submission that the present
CRLMC is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be
rejected in limine.
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
(i) The Opp. Party contends that the F.I.R. has been lawfully registered
on 28.12.2025 pursuant to an enquiry conducted by the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Choudwar Police Station, in compliance with
the direction issued by the Inspector-in-Charge.
(ii) It is submitted that during the course of such enquiry, it was
revealed that the Petitioner, under the guise of an RTI activist, was
allegedly in the habit of creating public disturbances by raising
frivolous issues on social media platforms, instigating public
protests, and using abusive and unparliamentary language against
government officials and statutory institutions, thereby allegedly
lowering their dignity and reputation in society.
(iii) The Opposite Party further contends that the Petitioner had
allegedly gone to the extent of making derogatory and abusive
remarks against the Odisha Information Commission, an
autonomous statutory adjudicatory authority, with the mala fide
intention of creating public distrust and undermining the credibility
of its functioning.
(iv) It is submitted that the said conduct was occasioned pursuant to an
order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Commission, wherein it was
categorically observed that statutory rights under the RTI Act and
the Press Council framework do not extend to any misuse thereof in
a manner prejudicial to public order, and that such conduct may
attract penal consequences under relevant provisions relating to
cyber offences.
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
(v) The Opposite Party contends that during the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer collected five pages of social
media posts, which also included certain remarks and posts
allegedly made against the Government of Odisha and concerned
authorities. It is further submitted that, in order to ascertain the
authenticity and origin of the said material, a request letter has been
issued to the Facebook Law Enforcement Authority under the Meta
Platform seeking production of relevant details and documents in
connection with the aforesaid social media posts.
(vi) The Opposite Party further maintains that the Petitioner, in
connivance with certain local anti-social elements, had allegedly
obstructed the ongoing public work relating to the construction of
the National Highway-55 service road at Choudwar, despite lawful
execution of the project. It is asserted that the Petitioner misused his
position and influence to harass public officials, interfere with the
discharge of their official duties, and disrupt the smooth execution
of public work, thereby causing deliberate inconvenience to the
general public, purportedly to advance his own personal interests
and vendetta.
(vii) The Opposite Party contends that the aforesaid acts of the
Petitioner, being high-handed in nature and amounting to misuse
of position and influence, prima facie disclose the commission of
cognizable offences under Sections 223, 352, 353(1)(b), and 296 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66(D) and 67
of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
(viii) The Opposite Party vehemently contends that the Inspector-in-
Charge, Choudwar Police Station, has acted strictly in accordance
with law in initiating proceedings and registering the F.I.R. suo
motu, without awaiting a formal complaint, in view of the
cognizable nature of the offences disclosed during the enquiry.
(ix) It is submitted that such prompt action was necessitated to
maintain public order and ensure the smooth functioning and
integrity of public institutions and authorities. The Opposite Party
further contends that any failure on the part of the police to take
cognizance and act upon material disclosing commission of
cognizable offences would amount to dereliction of duty under law.
OURT S EASONING AND NALYSIS
IV. C ’ R A :
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
6.
At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference in exercise
of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is well settled.
7. It is further a well-settled principle of law that while exercising its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the High Court ought not to embark upon a meticulous
enquiry into the reliability, admissibility, or sufficiency of the evidence
collected during investigation.
8. The scope of interference at such stage is inherently limited and is
required to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in
exceptional circumstances where continuation of the criminal
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court or where
no offence is disclosed on the face of the record.
9.
In the present case, the Petitioner, being a social activist engaged in
matters concerning public causes, transparency, and accountability,
and actively associated with the use of statutory mechanisms including
the Right to Information Act, has approached this Court seeking
quashing of the F.I.R. registered against him for the alleged
commission of offences as stated therein.
10.
It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that criminal law
cannot be set into motion on the basis of vague, sweeping, and
omnibus allegations, particularly where such allegations tend to
criminalise lawful and peaceful exercise of rights guaranteed under the
Constitution.
11.
In the present case, it is contended that the impugned F.I.R. has been
registered in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind,
and without disclosing specific overt acts constituting the alleged
offences, thereby rendering the initiation of criminal proceedings ex
facie unsustainable in law.
12. This Court is of the considered view that, in the present case, the nature
of the alleged instigation attributed to the Petitioners has not been
specifically spelt out, nor have any particular words, acts, or gestures
been ascribed to them with requisite clarity and precision. In the
absence of such particulars, there exists no tangible or legally
sustainable basis to attribute the alleged conduct to the Petitioners so as
to bring their acts within the four corners of the offences alleged.
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
13. Furthermore, the Investigating Agency has failed to place on record
any cogent material indicating the specific or definite role of the
Petitioners in the alleged incident. In such circumstances, the
allegations, being vague and unsupported by necessary particulars, do
not prima facie disclose commission of the offences alleged.
14. This Court is also of the considered view that, although the Petitioner,
being a social activist, is entitled to the exercise of rights guaranteed
under the Constitution of India and other statutory frameworks, such
rights are not absolute in nature and are subject to reasonable
restrictions recognised under law. It is well-settled that every right is
accompanied by corresponding duties and obligations, and it is
incumbent upon the holder of such rights to act within the confines of
law while exercising the same, maintaining due regard to the rights of
others as well as the larger interest of society.
15.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and
upon due appreciation of the materials available on record, the present
Petition stands allowed.
ONCLUSION
V. C :
16. In view of the foregoing analysis, and upon an anxious, careful, and
comprehensive consideration of the material facts, records, and
circumstances attendant to the present case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner,
even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety.
17. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed.
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
18. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
nd
Dated 22 May, 2026
Page 12