ANITA KAR@ANITA DASH 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: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.5335 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023).
Mrs. Anita Kar @ Nita Dash … Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha … Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Srikanta Samal, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
Mrs. Padmaja Pattnaik, Adv.
(for O.P.2)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING: -30.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT: - 15.05.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner has instituted the present CRLMC under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this
Court, inter alia , seeking quashing of the FIR vide Bargaon P.S. Case
No.302 dated 03.11.2025 registered under Sections 281, 125(a), and
125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with all criminal
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
proceedings emanating therefrom, on the grounds that they are
illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.
The petitioner also prayed for a direction to State authorities
mandating a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS in
cases of road accidents or alleged negligence where the nature of the
offence is doubtful, to prevent unnecessary harassment of innocent
individuals.
ACTUAL ATRIX OF THE ASE
I. F M C :
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 05.04.2025 at about 3:30 p.m., the Petitioner being a
practising advocate along with her associate Ms. Sushma Tanty
(hereinafter referred to as the “Informant”), was travelling from
Rourkela to Sundargarh in a car bearing Registration No. OD-
14-W-1045, which was duly insured and being driven by the
Petitioner herself.
(ii) Upon reaching near Deokaranpur School, within the jurisdiction
of Bargaon Police Station, the said vehicle, due to the presence of
a sharp blind curve and the accident-prone nature of the stretch,
inadvertently veered off the main road and entered an adjoining
field. As a result of the said incident, both the Petitioner and the
Informant sustained injuries, and the vehicle suffered
substantial damage.
(iii) The F.I.R. came to be lodged on 03.11.2025, i.e., almost seven
months after the incident. The Petitioner seeks quashment of the
criminal proceedings being frivolous.
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
UBMISSIONS N EHALF F HE ETITIONER
II. S O B O T P :
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The F.I.R. was lodged after an inordinate delay on 03.11.2025,
i.e. almost seven months after the incident.
(ii) On a bare perusal of the FIR does not disclose any allegation
that the Petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly, negligently, or
in a manner so as to endanger human life or personal safety,
which are essential ingredients to constitute offences under
Sections 281 and 125 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”).
(iii) Mere occurrence of a road accident, without any element of
criminal rashness or gross negligence, does not constitute a
cognizable offence under the BNSS.
(iv) Section 173(1) of the BNSS, registration of an FIR is justified only
when the information received discloses commission of a
cognizable offence. In the present case, the FIR itself does not
disclose the basic ingredients of any cognizable offence;
therefore, its registration is mechanical, illegal, and without
jurisdiction.
(v) Section 173(3) of the BNSS provides that, in offences punishable
with imprisonment between three and seven years, the Officer-
in-Charge may conduct a preliminary enquiry with prior
approval of a Superior Officer not below the rank of Deputy
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
Superintendent of Police to ascertain whether a prima facie case
exists. Had such an enquiry been conducted in the present case,
it would have revealed that no prima facie material exists to
constitute any cognizable offence against the Petitioner.
(vi) Both the Petitioner and the informant are practicing advocates,
and the journey was undertaken in connection with professional
commitments before Courts in Sundargarh District.
(vii) The Petitioner is an experienced driver, holding a valid driving
licence for several years and have regularly travelled to various
Courts in Sundargarh District along with the informant since
2020.
(viii) Continuation of criminal proceedings on the basis of such an FIR
would amount to abuse of the process of law and would
seriously prejudice my reputation and professional standing as a
prominent female practicing advocate.
(ix) Allowing FIRs of this nature to continue would open the
floodgates to frivolous criminal proceedings, where every
accidental incident could be converted into a criminal case,
thereby defeating the safeguards contemplated under the BNSS,
2023.
(x) There exists no material to justify criminal prosecution in a case
involving a mere accident where neither mens rea nor criminal
negligence can be attributed to the Petitioner.
(xi) The statements recorded by the police, if any, under Section 180
of the BNSS during the course of investigation do not constitute
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis of criminal
prosecution. Furthermore, there exists a possibility that, after a
considerable lapse of time, the police may record statements
containing afterthoughts to strengthen or develop the case.
Permitting the investigation to proceed after such an inordinate
delay would therefore amount to an abuse of the process of law.
(xii) He placed reliance in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of
1
Gujarat & Anr. , wherein the Supreme Court held that Section
173(3) of the BNSS introduces a significant departure from
Section 154 CrPC by permitting a preliminary enquiry even in
cognizable offences punishable between three and seven years,
in order to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists before
proceeding further. If after such enquiry the officer finds that
no prima facie case is made out, he must inform the informant
and refrain from proceeding further. The relevant paragraphs
are reproduced below:
“ 42 . Following is the summary of our conclusions:
i. Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS makes a
significant departure from Section 154 of CrPC. It
provides that when information relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence which is made
punishable for 3 years or more but less than 7 years is
received by an officer-incharge of a police station,
with the prior permission of a superior officer as
mentioned therein, the police officer is empowered to
conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether
1 th
Criminal Appeal No.1545 of 2025 decided on 28 March, 2025
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
there exists a prima fade case for proceeding in the
matter. However, under Section 154 of the CrPC, as
held in the case of Lalita Kumari, only a limited
preliminary inquiry is permissible to ascertain
whether the information received discloses a
cognizable offence. Moreover, a preliminary inquiry
can be made under the CrPC only if the information
does not disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry.
Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS is an
exception to sub-Section (1) of Section 173. In the
category of cases covered by sub-Section (3), a police
officer is empowered to make a preliminary inquiry to
ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out for
proceeding in the matter even if the information
received discloses commission of any cognizable
offence.
ii. Under sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS,
after holding a preliminary inquiry, if the officer
comes to a conclusion that a prima fade case exists to
proceed, he should immediately register an FIR and
proceed to investigate. But, if he is of the view that a
prima fade case is not made out to proceed, he should
immediately inform the first informant/complainant
so that he can avail a remedy under sub-Section (4) of
Section 173.
iii. In case of the offence punishable under Section 196
of the BNS to decide whether the words, either spoken
or written or by sign or by visible representations or
through electronic communication or otherwise, lead
to the consequences provided in the Section, the police
officer to whom information is furnished will have to
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
read or hear the words written or spoken, and by
taking the same as correct, decide whether an offence
under Section 196 is made out. Reading of written
words, or hearing spoken words will be necessary to
determine whether the contents make out a case of the
commission of a cognizable offence. The same is the
case with offences punishable under Sections 197, 299
and 302 of BNS. Therefore, to ascertain whether the
information received by an officer-in-charge of the
police station makes out a cognizable offence, the
officer must consider the meaning of the spoken or
written words. This act on the part of the police officer
will not amount to making a preliminary inquiry
which is not permissible under sub-Section (1) of
Section 173.
iv. The police officers must abide by the Constitution
and respect its ideals. The philosophy of the
Constitution and its ideals can be found in the
preamble itself. The preamble lays down that the
people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute
India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic
republic and to secure sill its citizens liberty of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.
Therefore, liberty of thought and expression is one of
the ideals of our Constitution. Article 19(l)(a) confers
a fundamental right on all citizens to freedom of
speech and expression. The police machinery is a part
of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution. Moreover, the police officers being
citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution. They
are bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech
and expression conferred on all citizens.
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
v. Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution carves
out an exception to the fundamental right guaranteed
under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19. If
there is a law covered by clause (2), its operation
remains unaffected by sub-clause (a) of clause (1). We
must remember that laws covered by the clause (2) are
protected by way of an exception provided they
impose a reasonable restriction. Therefore, when an
allegation is of the commission of an offence covered
by the law referred to in clause (2) of Article 19, if
sub-Section (3) of Section 173 is applicable, it is
always appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry
to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out to
proceed against the accused. This will ensure that the
fundamental rights guaranteed under sub-clause (a)
of clause (1) of Article 19 remain protected. Therefore,
in such cases, the higher police officer referred to in
sub- Section (3) of Section 173 must normally grant
permission to the police officer to conduct a
preliminary inquiry.
vi. When an offence punishable under Section 196 of
BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written
words will have to be considered based on standards
of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous
individuals and not based on the standards of people
with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the
spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis
of the standards of people who always have a sense of
insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as
a threat to their power or position.
vii. There is no absolute rule that when the investigation
is at a nascent stage, the High Court cannot exercise
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
its jurisdiction to quash an offence by exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India or under Section 482 of the CrPC equivalent to
Section 528 of the BNSS. When the High Court, in
the given case, finds that no offence was made out on
the face of it, to prevent abuse of the process of law, it
can always interfere even though the investigation is
at the nascent stage. It all depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case as well as the nature of the
offence. There is no such blanket rule putting an
embargo on the powers of the High Court to quash
FIR only on the ground that the investigation was at
a nascent stage.
viii. Free expression of thoughts and views by
individuals or group of individuals is an integral part
of a healthy civilised society. Without freedom of
expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to
lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views,
opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or
group of individuals must be countered by expressing
another point of view. Even if a large number of
persons dislike the views expressed by another, the
right of the person to express the views must be
respected and protected. Literature including poetry,
dramas, films, stage shows including stand-up
comedy, satire and art, make the lives of human
beings more meaningful. The Courts are duty-bound
to uphold and enforce fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution of India. Sometimes, we, the
Judges, may not like spoken or written words. But,
still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental right
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
under Article 19 (l)(a). We Judges are under an
obligation to uphold the Constitution and respect its
ideals. If the police or executive fail to honour and
protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Article 19 (l)(a) of the Constitution, it is the duty of
the Courts to step in and protect the fundamental
rights. There is no other institution which can uphold
the fundamental rights of the citizens.
ix. 75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be
so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a
poem or for that matter, any form of art or
entertainment, such as, stand-up comedy, can be
alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst
different communities. Subscribing to such a view
would stifle all legitimate expressions of view in the
public domain which is so fundamental to a free
society.”
(xiii) He also placed reliance in the case of State of Haryana v.
2
Bhajan Lal , wherein the Supreme Court held that the High
Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal
proceedings where the allegations in the FIR do not disclose
commission of any offence or where the proceedings amount to
abuse of the process of law, even if the investigation is at a
nascent stage.
(xiv) He further placed reliance in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt.
3
of U.P. & Ors. , wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows:
“ 111. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
2
(1992 AIR 604)
3 th
Writ Petition (Criminal ) No.68 of 2008 decided on 12 November, 2013.
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of
the Code, if the information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is
permissible in such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable
offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain
whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not .
(Emphasis supplied)
(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where
preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy
of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first
informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must
disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not
proceeding further.
(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering
offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be
taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if
information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the
veracity or otherwise of the information received but only
to ascertain whether the information reveals any
cognizable offence.
(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry
is to be conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which
preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches
in initiating criminal prosecution, for
example, over 3 months delay in reporting the
matter without satisfactory explaining the
reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of
all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused
and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be
made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7
days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be
reflected in the General Diary entry.
(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is
the record of all information received in a police station, we
direct that all information relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an
inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in
the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary
inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”
(xv) He also placed reliance in the case of the State of Delhi v.
4
. , wherein the High Court held as follows:
Mamta Seghal & Anr
“ 19. In so far as the Car being driven by the Respondent is
not disputed, but the testimony of the Complainant has not
been able to establish that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the Car by the Respondent. It
has been rightly observed by the learned M.M. that merely
because an accident took place, is not ipso facto a ground to
attribute negligence to the Respondent in the absence of any
such evidence.”
4 th
CRLA No.534 of 2025 decided on 28 June, 2025
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
UBMISSIONS N EHALF F HE PPOSITE ARTY NO
III. S O B O T O P .2:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) On 05.04.2025 at about 3:30 PM, the Petitioner along with the
Opposite Party No.2 (informant) was proceeding from
Sundargarh to Rourkela in a car bearing Registration No. OD-
14-W-1045 and while they reached near Deokaranpur School
under Bargaon Police Station, the said vehicle met with a serious
accident.
(ii) At the time of the accident, the Petitioner was driving the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life
and due to such reckless driving, the accident occurred causing
severe injuries to the informant, who was seated in the front
passenger seat.
(iii) As a result of the accident, the Opposite Party No.2 sustained
grievous injuries, including fracture of the left thigh and
multiple injuries on hands, legs and face due to broken glass
pieces penetrating into her body.
(iv) Immediately after the accident, the injured-informant was
shifted to Rogi Kalyan Samiti, District Headquarters Hospital,
Sundargarh with the assistance of local persons and thereafter
referred to Jaiprakash Hospital and Research Centre, Rourkela,
where she underwent surgery and continued medical treatment.
(v) Due to the serious condition of the informant and continuous
hospitalization, including surgical procedures and follow-up
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
treatment, she was not in a position to lodge the FIR
immediately, and such delay is bona fide and sufficiently
explained.
(vi) Taking undue advantage of the critical condition of the
informant, the Petitioner managed to misrepresent the cause of
injury in hospital records by falsely stating that the informant
sustained injuries due to a self-fall from a scooty, which is
wholly incorrect and misleading.
(vii) The contention of the Petitioner that the accident does not
constitute a cognizable offence is legally untenable, as the acts of
the Petitioner clearly attract the provisions of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Section 281 relating to rash and
negligent driving and Section 125(a) and 125(b) relating to acts
endangering life or personal safety of others, which are
cognizable offences.
(viii) The materials placed on record clearly establish that the accident
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the
Petitioner, resulting in grievous injuries to the informant and
therefore the present case discloses commission of cognizable
offences and warrants proper investigation and prosecution in
accordance with law.
(ix) She placed reliance in the case of
Muskan v. Isliaan Khan
5
(Sataniya) & Ors. , wherein the Supreme Court has held that
inherent powers must be exercised sparingly and only in
5
(2026) 101 OCR (SC) 116
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
exceptional circumstances, particularly where the allegations are
absurd or fall within the categories enumerated in the landmark
judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
(x) It is further settled that minor inconsistencies, delay in lodging
the F.I.R., or allegations of counterblast do not justify quashing
of proceedings, where the F.I.R. prima facie discloses
commission of cognizable offences. In such cases, investigation
should not be stifled at the threshold.
(xi) Further, as held by the Supreme Court in Niharika
6
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra , while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now
corresponding provisions under BNSS), must confine itself to
examining whether the allegations in the F.I.R. disclose
commission of a cognizable offence. If so, the Court should
permit the investigating agency to proceed with investigation
and should not interfere prematurely.
(xii) Therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled legal position, she
submits that the present petition filed by the Petitioner is devoid
of merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
(xiii) It is further prayed that, considering the grievous injuries
sustained and the prolonged trauma and mental distress
suffered by Opposite Party No.2, this Court may be pleased to
grant appropriate compensation, to be paid by the Petitioner, in
the interest of justice.
6
(2021) 19 SCC 401
Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
OURT S EASONING AND NALYSIS
IV. C ’ R A :
5. This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and
has carefully perused the materials available on record.
6.
The foundational question that arises for consideration is whether
the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., taken at their face
value and accepted in entirety, disclose the commission of any
cognizable offence so as to justify continuation of criminal
investigation against the Petitioner. It is now well settled that the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS is intended to prevent abuse of the
process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Though such
power is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, the
Court cannot remain a silent spectator where the allegations, even
if admitted in full, fail to satisfy the essential ingredients of the
alleged offences.
7.
Upon a careful reading of the F.I.R. and the surrounding
circumstances, this Court finds that the gravamen of the accusation
rests on the allegation that the vehicle driven by the Petitioner met
with an accident resulting in injuries to the informant. However,
criminal liability for offences relating to rash or negligent driving
cannot be inferred merely because an accident has occurred. In
criminal jurisprudence, negligence sufficient to attract penal
consequences must be of such degree as to disclose recklessness,
gross disregard for human safety, or conduct imminently
Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
dangerous to life. Every error of judgment, every unfortunate
mishap, or every accident does not ipso facto constitute a criminal
offence. The distinction between a mere accident and criminal
rashness is not one of semantics, but of substance. Criminal law
intervenes not to punish human fallibility, but culpable disregard
for consequences.
8. In the present case, the allegations contained in the F.I.R. are
conspicuously devoid of any specific assertion describing the
manner in which the Petitioner allegedly drove the vehicle rashly
or negligently. There is no allegation regarding excessive speed,
dangerous overtaking, intoxication, violation of traffic norms,
deliberate disregard of road conditions, or any overt act indicative
of culpable negligence. On the contrary, the materials on record
indicate that the accident occurred near a blind curve and accident-
prone stretch where the vehicle allegedly lost control and entered
an adjoining field. Such circumstances, by themselves, cannot
automatically give rise to a presumption of criminality. The law
does not permit conversion of every unfortunate road accident into
a criminal prosecution merely because bodily injury has ensued.
9. This Court also finds considerable force in the contention advanced
on behalf of the Petitioner regarding the extraordinary and
unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. The alleged incident
occurred on 05.04.2025 whereas the F.I.R. came to be lodged only
on 03.11.2025, nearly seven months thereafter. Though the
informant has attempted to explain such delay on the ground of
Page 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
medical treatment and prolonged hospitalization, the delay
nevertheless assumes significance in the peculiar facts of the
present case, particularly when the prosecution seeks to attribute
criminal negligence after a substantial lapse of time. Delay in
criminal law is not always fatal; yet where allegations arise after
considerable passage of time without contemporaneous accusation,
the possibility of embellishment, afterthought, or reconstructed
narration cannot be altogether ruled out. The Supreme Court in
Lalita Kumari has itself recognized that cases involving abnormal
delay in initiation of prosecution may warrant a preliminary
enquiry before registration of the F.I.R.
10.
The introduction of Section 173(3) of the BNSS marks a significant
legislative shift by enabling a preliminary enquiry in specified
categories of cognizable offences punishable between three and
seven years, for the purpose of ascertaining whether a prima facie
case exists before the coercive machinery of criminal law is set in
motion. The legislative intent underlying such provision is to
ensure that criminal prosecution is not mechanically initiated in
cases where foundational facts themselves are doubtful or where
the allegations require threshold verification. The safeguard is
rooted in the broader constitutional principle that criminal law
should not become an instrument of harassment. In the present
case, considering the admitted delay, the absence of specific
allegations constituting criminal rashness, and the nature of the
occurrence itself, a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS
Page 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
would have been both desirable and consistent with the legislative
object underlying the provision.
11. This Court is equally conscious of the settled principle that at the
stage of investigation the Court ordinarily ought not to embark
upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial.
However, the embargo against interference at the nascent stage
cannot be elevated into an absolute proposition disabling the
constitutional courts from exercising jurisdiction where
continuation of criminal proceedings itself amounts to abuse of
process. The Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal and subsequent
decisions has consistently held that where the allegations in the
F.I.R., even if taken at their highest, fail to disclose the commission
of any offence, the High Court would be justified in exercising its
inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
12. The present case appears to fundamentally arise out of an
unfortunate motor accident in which both occupants of the vehicle
sustained injuries. The materials presently available do not prima
facie disclose the degree of mens rea, recklessness, or gross
negligence necessary to attract criminal prosecution under Sections
281 and 125 of the BNS. Permitting investigation to continue in
absence of foundational allegations constituting the offence would
amount to allowing criminal law to travel beyond its legitimate
bounds and would unnecessarily subject the Petitioner to the
rigours of criminal prosecution despite absence of basic
jurisdictional facts. Criminal process cannot be permitted to
Page 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47
operate as a punitive mechanism merely because an accident has
occurred
V. C ONCLUSION :
13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the present
case falls within the well-recognized categories warranting exercise
of inherent jurisdiction, particularly where the allegations in the
F.I.R., even if accepted in entirety, fail to disclose the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged and continuation of the
proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
Consequently, the impugned F.I.R. vide Bargaon P.S. Case No.302
dated 03.11.2025 and all consequential criminal proceedings
emanating therefrom are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the
CRLMC stands disposed of being allowed.
14. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 15 May, , 2026/
Page 20