SURYAMANI TRIPATHY vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2887 of 2024
Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh
Gahlot
AFR
Petitioner
….
Mr. Subir Kumar Palit, Senior Advocate
-
-Versus
State of Odisha & another Opposite Parties
….
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. B.D. Das, Advocate for the Informant
A N D
CRLMC No.427 of 2023
Suryamani Tripathy …. Petitioner
Mr. Millan Kanungo, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate
-
-Versus
State of Odisha Opposite Party
….
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING: 30.04.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:19.06.2026
1 . Both the CRLMCs are clubbed together for disposal by
the following common judgment.
2 . Instant CRLMCs have been filed by the petitioners for
quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.T. Case Nos. 66
Page 1 of 29
of 2023 and C.T. Case No.6000 of 2021 respectively arising
out of E.O.W. P.S. Case No.14 of 2021 registered under
Section(s) 419, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of the I.P.C.
pending before the Court of learned Presiding Officer,
Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack on the grounds
stated therein.
3
. CRLMC No.2887 of 2024: The petitioner herein, a
Central Government employee has questioned the
jurisdiction of the EOW and also the maintainability of the
criminal proceeding initiated against him vide C.T. Case
No. 66 of 2023 on the grounds inter alia that any such action
is illegal and hence, liable to be quashed in the interest of
justice. The jurisdiction of the EOW is challenged in view
of EOW Circular No.01 of 2019 issued by Odisha Police,
th
Economic Offences Wing, Bhubaneswar dated 30
November, 2019. The above challenge is on the premise that
the EOW does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction since the
amount of financial fraud stands less than Rs.1 crore. The
further plea is that the dispute inter se parties is civil in
nature, hence, the criminal action pursuant to registration of
EOW P.S. Case No.14 of 2021 is legally not tenable.
Furthermore, according to the petitioner, his direct
involvement is not proved in so far as the transactions in
question are concerned even by considering the materials on
record and therefore, the proceeding pending before the
learned Court below shall have to be quashed by this Court
in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Page 2 of 29
4 . CRLMC No.427 of 2023: In the instant case, the
petitioner similarly challenged the criminal prosecution
more or less on the self-same grounds by claiming that it is
a civil dispute between the parties. As per the petitioner, the
EOW has no jurisdiction to investigate as the amount of
financial fraud is less than the threshold limit. It is claimed
that the earlier complaint before the Delhi Police revealed
an amount less than Rs.1 crore, however, in order to bring it
within the sweep of the EOW, a fraud of Rs.1.17 Crore is
alleged, which is not supported by any evidence and
explanation offered by the informant. Furthermore, the
criminal action against the petitioner calls for interference
since it is a civil dispute duly acknowledged by the Delhi
Police after enquiry. Under the above circumstances and
considering the nature of dispute between the parties, not
only a criminal prosecution is not to lie, but also the EOW
lacks jurisdiction to undertake inquiry and investigation
since the financial fraud is less than Rs.1 crore.
5
. The informant has been impleaded as opposite party
No.2 in CRLMC No.2887 of 2024 and he is said to have
lodged the FIR registered as EOW P.S. Case No.14 dated
th
28 October, 2001.
6 . Apart from the grounds pleaded on record, delay in
lodging of the FIR is alleged by the petitioners. It is claimed
that the alleged transactions leading to the lodging of the
FIR are more than four years old as the cause of action
commenced in the year 2017 and there is no proper
explanation offered by the informant to explain the delay.
Page 3 of 29
7 . The facts are similar in both the cases and therefore, it is
not elaborately described for the sake of brevity.
8 . Gone through the contents of the FIR at Annexure-1.
The details of the circumstances leading to the lodging of
the FIRs are described therein by the informant. The entirety
of the transactions having taken place between the parties
stands narrated in the FIR. On a reading of the report dated
th
28 October, 2021 lodged by the informant, it is made to
understand that the transactions were allegedly effected
towards issuance of work orders in favour of the informant.
The nature of work orders is also described in the FIR. All
such details of the payments made from the side of the
informant have been disclosed in the said report. After the
transactions had taken place, according to the informant, no
advance amount as promised was deposited in his account,
nor was any single work assigned to them. Even after the
work orders were handed over at the instant of the
petitioners and others, entertaining a doubt and on an
inquiry by the informant, it was revealed that the entire
episode was a false and fraudulent one as the accused
persons impersonated themselves as officers of RAW, PWD
etc. and thereby cheated him in respect of an amount of
Rs.1.17 crore and besides that the documents received by
them for the contractual works were also found to be fake. It
is alleged further that the accused persons committed fraud
and misappropriated the amount received with a false
promise of providing high amount of contracts to the
informant and when the latter approached the former
Page 4 of 29
demanding its refund, one of them, namely, Rajesh Kumar
@ Rajesh Gahlot threatened him with dire consequences in
case any legal action is initiated against them. Precisely the
above are the facts alleged in the FIRs alleging involvement
of the petitioners and others in committing the fraud and
cheating the informant.
9 . The informant is the proprietor of M/s. Rashtriya
Stainless Steel and in that capacity, he had engaged himself
with transactions and is said to have made the payments to
the accused persons.
10 . Perused the counter affidavit filed by the State and also
the rejoinder of the petitioner to the same in CRLMC
No.2887 of 2024.
11 . Whether the EOW has the jurisdiction in view of the
th
Circular dated 30 November, 2019 of the Odisha Police
EOW, Bhubaneswar, wherein a threshold limit is fixed to
investigate a financial fraud of Rs.1 crore and more? If at all
the allegations in the FIR do relate to a civil dispute and
therefore, the criminal prosecution does not lie? The above
are the questions to be determined by this Court with
reference to the materials on record. The ground of delay
attributed to the informant is also raised by the petitioners
and it is also to be examined. But primarily the challenge to
the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is
based on the pecuniary jurisdiction of the EOW and the
nature of litigation claiming it to be a civil liability.
12 . Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
Page 5 of 29
13 . According to Mr. Palit, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner in CRLMC No.2887 of 2024,
the EOW does not have the jurisdiction to take up the
investigation as the amount involved in the alleged fraud is
less than Rs.1 crore in view of the EOW Circular No.01 of
2019. Similar is the argument advanced by Mr. Kanungo,
learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Katikia, learned
counsel for the petitioner in CRLMC No.427 of 2023. The
contention is that the EOW could not have entertained the
FIR and ought not to have proceeded with the investigation
when the threshold limit is below Rs.1 crore. Such
submission is made with reference to the earlier complaint
lodged with the Delhi Police. Referring to a copy of the said
complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New
Delhi by opposite party No.2 as at Annexure-9 to the
rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner filed in CRLMC
No.2887 of 2024, it is contended by Mr. Palit, learned
Senior Advocate that therein the allegation against the
accused persons was about a conspiracy by impersonation
and a financial fraud of Rs.90 lac but how it has become
Rs.1.17 crore has not been explained away. The further
submission is that the same incident has been reported to the
EOW but without any material to show involvement of a
financial fraud gone up to Rs.1.17 crore. It is alleged that
only to ensure that the EOW acquires the jurisdiction, a
higher amount is alleged and therefore, on the basis of the
earlier complaint, the EOW cannot have the jurisdiction
when the amount of financial fraud was alleged for an
amount of Rs.90 lac. By comparing the facts alleged in the
Page 6 of 29
complaint before the Delhi Police and the FIR, it is
contended by Mr. Palit, learned Senior Advocate that the
EOW lacks jurisdiction pecuniary-wise and therefore, the
criminal action and investigation initiated against the
petitioners is liable to be quashed all the more when the
Delhi Police found the dispute between the parties to be
civil in nature. Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate along
with Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the other petitioner
reiterated the above plea vis-à-vis the jurisdiction of the
th
EOW with reference to the Circular dated 30 November,
2019 of EOW, Bhubaneswar and argued that the
transactions, if any, between the parties relate to a civil
liability and nothing else and cannot be given a colour of
criminality.
14 . On the contrary, Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State
would submit that the EOW has the jurisdiction to deal with
the FIR and has rightly taken up investigation considering
the financial fraud alleged by the complainant. Such
submission is made with reference to the FIR lodged by the
informant, wherein the fraud is alleged for an amount of
Rs.1.17 crore. Mr. Panda, learned ASC further submits that
irrespective of the earlier complaint before the Delhi Police,
since the allegation is about a fraud for an amount above
Rs.1 crore alleged against the petitioners and others, it was
well within the powers of the EOW to enquire into and
investigate upon. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the
informant, namely, opposite party No.2 in CRLMC
No.2887 of 2024 submits that the EOW has the powers to
Page 7 of 29
inquire into the allegations of financial fraud in view of the
FIR, wherein, the amount of such fraud stands at Rs.1.17
crore. Referring to the transactions between the parties, the
documents of which are made available to this Court, it is
further submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel that there is
no illegality in taking up investigation after the FIR was
lodged when the amount of financial fraud is above the
threshold limit.
15 . One more plea is advanced from the side of the
petitioners with a claim that the FIR before the EOW cannot
be entertained as it is a second complaint to the previous one
before the Delhi Police. Mr. Palit, learned Senior Advocate
submits that on the self-same allegations when the first
complaint was received and it was dealt with by the Delhi
Police and the opinion therein was that the dispute was civil
in nature leaving the parties to avail appropriate remedy
under law, the FIR before the EOW should not have been
entertained. The contention is that a second complaint on
the same set of allegations is legally not permissible and
therefore, on such ground, the criminal prosecution shall
have to be quashed. Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the other
accused similarly submits that an inquiry was held by the
Delhi Police and therefore, after its culmination, the FIR
before the EOW is not maintainable. Mr. Panda, learned
ASC for the State, however, submits that the earlier
complaint was not registered and no investigation was taken
up by the Delhi Police and though an opinion was formed
Page 8 of 29
that the dispute is civil in nature, it allowed the parties to
avail such other remedy even by lodging a complaint before
the State Police. Not only that, according to Mr. Panda,
learned ASC, the Delhi Police transferred the case to the
EOW and therefore, the FIR lodged by the complainant is
no second complaint and hence, the contention advanced
from the side of the petitioners is misconceived. Mr. Rath,
learned counsel for the informant equally submits that no
detailed inquiry and investigation have taken place with the
complaint received by the Delhi Police, but in the meantime,
the EOW on the basis of the FIR lodged, swung into action
and therefore, the plea that the report is a second complaint
on the self-same allegations is entirely misplaced.
16 . In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners
relied on and referred to a host of citations some of which
are relevant and are to be discussed hereafter.
17 . Whether a jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to
be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case at
hand is to be examined with reference to the landmark
judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and
others Vrs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp. (1) SCC
335 . In the case (supra), the Apex Court laid down the
guidelines, but not an exhaustive one with illustrations
where extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. may be exercised in the backdrop of the relevant
provisions of the Cr.P.C. under Chapter-XIV and principles
Page 9 of 29
of law enunciated by its earlier decisions and for a better
appreciation, the same are extracted hereinbelow:
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
“
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down
any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose
Page 10 of 29
the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there
is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.
”
17.1 . In the above decision, it has also been cautioned that
the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare cases and that a Court would be
unjustified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint, finally concluding that the
Page 11 of 29
extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction does not confer an
arbitrary power to act according to
the Court’s whim or
caprice. The aforesaid guidelines have been summarized by
way of illustrations to prevent abuse of process of law or to
secure the ends of justice with an observation of the Apex
Court that it would not be possible to formulate precise,
clearly defined, sufficiently channelized and inflexible
stipulations or rigid formula and to provide an exhaustive
list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powers should be
exercised. Keeping in view the principles enunciated in the
decision (supra), the Court shall have to consider whether,
in the case of the petitioners, inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be invoked.
17.2 . Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate and Mr.
Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a case law in
Lalita Kumari Vrs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and
others (2014) 2 SCC 1 to contend that no criminal offence
is made out for inquiry and investigation by the EOW. In
the above decision, the Apex Court with reference to
Section 154 Cr.P.C. elaborately discussed and outlined what
should be the course of action and duty of the police upon
receiving the FIR, which is to be acted upon if revealing a
cognizable offence to have been committed and the manner
of investigation. It has also been held therein that there is a
distinction between inquiry and preliminary inquiry with
reference to Sections 2(g), 159, 202 and 340 Cr.P.C in
juxtaposition to Section 154 Cr.P.C and held that any
inquiry as per Section 2(g) Cr.P.C. is relatable to a judicial
Page 12 of 29
act and not for the steps taken by the police, which are either
investigation after the stage of Section 154 Cr.P.C. or
termed as preliminary inquiry held prior to the registration
of the FIR, even though no entry in the Station Diary has
been made. With such other aspects being examined in the
case (supra), the Apex Court summarized the law in the
following words, such as, (i) registration of FIR is
mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C if the information
discloses commission of a cognizable offence, where no
preliminary inquiry is permissible; (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 a cognizable
offence is disclosed or not; (iii) if the inquiry discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be
registered and in cases where preliminary inquiry ends in
closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure
must be supplied to the informant forthwith and not later
than one week disclosing the reasons in brief for closing the
complaint and not proceeding further; (iv) a Police Officer
cannot avoid his duty of registering a FIR if a cognizable
offence is disclosed and action must be taken against such
Officers who do not registered the same, if the information
received discloses an offence to have been committed of
cognizable in nature; (v) the scope of preliminary inquiry is
not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information
received only to ascertain whether the information revealed
any cognizable offence committed with a conclusion at the
end that as to what type and in which cases, preliminary
Page 13 of 29
inquiry is to be conducted shall depend on the facts and
circumstances of each particular case and that may include
matrimonial/family disputes, commercial offences, medical
negligence, corruption etc., which are only illustrations and
again not exhaustive of all exigencies which could warrant
such inquiry. The reference is made to the above decision
only to flag the plea that the EOW did not hold a
preliminary inquiry after the opinion formed by the Delhi
Police that the complaint is related to a civil dispute and
furthermore, when no cognizable offence(s) were shown to
have been committed by the petitioners.
18 . Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the informant cited the
following decisions, such as, Priti Saraf & another Vrs.
State of NCT of Delhi and another in Criminal Appeal
No. 296 of 2021/SLP (Crl.) No. 6364 of 2019; Pradeep
Kumar Kesarwani Vrs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and
another in Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025/SLP(Crl.)
M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure
No.11642 of 2019; and
Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. State of Maharashtra and others
in
Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021 to contended that on a
reading of the FIR, when it discloses commission of
cognizable offences considering the ingredients of the
offences alleged, it cannot be said to be absent on the basis
of the allegations therein and as to whether the complaint
and the facts alleged therein are true or false shall have to be
tested on the basis of the evidence led during trial and
simply because there is a civil remedy provided under law
does not by itself oust initiation of a criminal action and
Page 14 of 29
therefore, in view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court
in the decisions (supra), this Court is to examine the plea
regarding exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
19 . In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), the Apex Court
held and observed that the following steps should ordinarily
determine the quashing of a criminal action invoking the
power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C., such as;
“20. The following steps should ordinarily
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing,
raised by an accused by invoking the power
vested in the High Court under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C.-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied
upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and
indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and
impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied
upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions
contained in the charges levelled against the
accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject
and overrule the factual assertions contained in
the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would
persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as
false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied
upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is
such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the
trial would result in an abuse of process of the
court, and would not serve the ends of justice?”
Page 15 of 29
20 . In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra),
the Apex Court referred to the decision in R.P. Kapur Vrs.
State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 , wherein it has been
observed in the following words, such as:
“(i) Where it manifestly appears that there
is a legal bar against the institution or continuance
of the criminal proceeding in respect of the
offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction
may, for instance, furnish cases under this
category.
(ii) Where the allegations in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in
such cases no question of appreciating evidence
arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the
complaint or the first information report to decide
whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not.
(iii) Where the allegations made against the
accused person do constitute an offence alleged
but there is either no legal evidence adduced in
support of the case or the evidence adduced
clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In
dealing with this class of cases, it is important to
bear in mind the distinction between a case where
there is no legal evidence or where there is
evidence which is manifestly and clearly
inconsistent with the accusation made and cases
where there is legal evidence which on its
appreciation may or may not support the
accusation in question. In exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court
would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether
the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is
the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily
it would not be open to any party to invoke the
Page 16 of 29
High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend
that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence
the accusation made against the accused would
not be sustained.”
20.1 . Referring to the case (supra), the contention of Mr.
Rath, learned counsel for the informant is that the FIR
reveals cognizable offences to have been committed by the
petitioners alleging fraud and therefore, it was right and
justified on the part of the EOW to investigate into the
allegations upon the FIR being lodged and hence, no case is
made out for this Court to invoke inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings
initiated against the petitioners.
21 . Admittedly, an amount of Rs.90 lac is alleged to have
been received and misappropriated by the accused persons
revealed from the complaint lodged before the Delhi Police
and with the FIR lodged, it is shown at Rs.1.17 crore and
therefore, the contentions advanced from the side of the
petitioners are aimed at lack of jurisdiction for the EOW to
take up investigation. Rather, the claim of the petitioners is
that the fraud amount originally claimed by the informant is
below the threshold limit and hence, the EOW does not have
the jurisdiction to entertain the FIR and to take up
investigation with respect to the alleged financial fraud. As
earlier stated, the above plea of the petitioners is with
th
reference to the EOW’s Circular dated 30 November,
2019. The State’s response is that the EOW is having
powers to enquire into the allegation of fraud when the
amount is alleged to be Rs.1.17 crore in the FIR itself.
Page 17 of 29
21.1 . It is made to understand that all the cases related to
economic offences would be monitored by the EOW vide
th
Resolution No.6885 dated 17
Home Department’s
February, 2012 with the EOW, CID & CB declared as the
Nodal Agency and as per Circular No.01 of 2012, the EOW
shall take up cases of financial fraud of an amount of Rs.1
crore and more, whereas other cases are to be registered
before the District Police. It is also mentioned therein that
cases registered at the district are to be treated as Special
Report cases, but such cases have no specific mention
regarding categories of economic offences committed in the
present time to be treated as such and considering the
multitude and variety of the offences and the socio-
economic changes, increased number of the economic
offences being committed adversely impacting large section
of the society and also economic health of the State, it was
felt imperative to formulate a uniform criterion to treat
various economic offences as Special Report cases to
closely monitor investigation of such cases registered by the
District Police. As to more categories of cases to be treated
as Special Report cases involving the fraud amount of Rs.20
lac to be investigated upon by the District Police are also
stated therein, however, leaving it to the discretion of the
Superintendent of Police or Range DIG/IG to exercise
discretion to declare any type of sensitive case as Special
Report case.
21.2 . Of course, in Circular No.01 of 2019 of the EOW, a
limit of Rs.1 crore or above of financial fraud is fixed for
Page 18 of 29
the EOW to take up investigation of financial fraud and
referring to the same, it is alleged that any such enquiry and
such investigation into the allegations made in the FIR lie
beyond the jurisdiction of the EOW. No doubt, a Court may
have to scrutinize whether the EOW has the powers to
investigate into a particular case on the facts and pecuniary
value involved. But, according to the Court, jurisdiction of
the EOW is not strictly determined by the amount alone. At
times, one has to fall back upon the nature of the allegations
which may determine whether indulgence of the EOW is
necessary. As it is normally understood, the EOW only
handles complex organized and white-collar crimes. In the
considered view of the Court, if a dispute is purely civil
between the parties arising out of any contractual breach
leading to recovery of property without the elements of
deception or cheating involved, any such investigation taken
up by the EOW shall have to be quashed. It is also the view
of the Court that any such investigation by the EOW is not
to be prematurely interfered with on the basis of the
pecuniary value with reference to the amount of fraud. It
may, however, be examined whether the EOW has
improperly handled the case that falls below the financial
threshold or is purely of a civil dispute so as to intervene
and transfer it for enquiry by the District Police or even
quash the same. Even if the amount falls below or above the
threshold, a Court shall have to look at the factual matrix of
the case involved. If a dispute is below the prescribed limit
but involves complex financial fraud and ramifications, the
EOW can still investigate. But for the said purpose, special
Page 19 of 29
permission may have to be obtained by the EOW from the
Range DIG/IG. In other words, it may be said that the
monetary limit does not automatically exclude
the EOW’s
jurisdiction which it has and is possessed of when the
dispute involves systemic cheating or large-scale financial
fraud or it qualifies as an economic offence involving
multiple victims of the crime.
22 . In so far as the case at hand is concerned, according to
the informant, fraud has been committed by the accused
persons, mentioning in detail about the alleged transactions
and transfers of money and even payments made in cash.
The role of each of the petitioners is described in the FIR.
Admittedly, it is not a case of massive fraud alleged by the
informant. It is not a case of systemic embezzlement or
organized fraud as made to be understood from the FIR
lodged by the informant, who himself said to have been
cheated on a promise of providing contractual works. It has
been alleged by the informant that all the documents with
respect to the issuance of work orders etc. found to be fake.
It has even been alleged that the petitioner, namely, Rajesh
Kumar @ Rajesh Gehlot introduced himself as an officer of
RAW. It is entirely based on transactions inter se parties
with allegations of fraud against the petitioners and others.
Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court
regarding any large scale of fraud committed by the
petitioners in duping anyone else besides the informant. If it
is an extensive fraud involving many others apart from the
complainant, it would well be within the powers of the
Page 20 of 29
EOW to take up the investigation even when the financial
limit is less than Rs.1 crore. It depends on the nature of the
crime and its magnitude, which is to determine whether a
particular case of forgery or financial fraud is to be
investigated upon by the EOW irrespective of the threshold
limit. Under the above circumstances, this Court is of the
view that the financial limit fixed by the EOW may have a
role to play in the determination of its jurisdiction to
entertain a report of fraud and to undertake investigation,
but that alone is not a factor when it has the powers to deal
with the cases where large-scale fraud by embezzlement is
alleged.
23 . Referring to the FIR, the amount of fraud is alleged at
Rs.1.17 crore. From the earlier complaint, the said amount
was shown at Rs.90 lac. Both sides have referred to the
earlier complaint and the FIR to show that the threshold
limit is or is not achieved. The transactions are referred to
while claiming one way or the other vis-à-vis pecuniary
value and the authority of the EOW to investigate into the
financial fraud. The FIR is a means by which a criminal law
is set into motion. On what basis did the informant arrive at
an amount Rs.1.17 crore mentioned in the FIR needed an
enquiry by the EOW when the earlier complaint claimed it
for an amount of Rs.90 lac only. It is admittedly a fraud
involving the parties. The FIR alleges cheating and fraud
against the portioners and others and is not entirely a civil
dispute, though it was such according to the Delhi Police. It
is obviously not a case of any massive fraud with
Page 21 of 29
involvement of a large number of victims allegedly
committed. The EOW should be alive to the fact that the
financial fraud is not of such a category or magnitude that
requires its indulgence. At this juncture, when the
investigation is initiated, considering the fact that the FIR is
lodged with such an allegation made involving an amount of
Rs.1.17 crore, this Court is to refrain itself from delving into
the details of the transactions with necessary calculations
made to determine the claim with respect to the threshold
limit fixed rather than leave it for the EOW to examine and
to take a decision whether it has the jurisdiction pecuniary-
wise to investigate into the allegations of the financial fraud,
keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. In
other words, this Court is not inclined to engage itself to
determine the threshold limit that entitles the EOW to
entertain the FIR and investigate when the amount of fraud
differs in the complaint before the Delhi Police and the FIR.
According to the Court, it should be left to the EOW to
determine its jurisdiction and if the financial fraud limit is
found to be less than Rs.1 crore to transfer the case to the
District Police for investigation as in the view of the Court,
it is not a civil dispute simpliciter since such fraud is alleged
by impersonation and by such other means employed for
duping the informant. This Court is, therefore, inclined to
leave it to the EOW to verify the records to ascertain the
amount of financial fraud with reference to the earlier
complaint before the Delhi Police and thereafter, to take a
decision whether it has the jurisdiction to take up the
investigation in view of the threshold limit of Rs.1 crore and
Page 22 of 29
if it is found to be less, to immediately transfer the
investigation to the District Police.
24 . As to the earlier complaint by the informant before the
Delhi Police, it was lodged in the year 2020. The informant
alleged mischief committed by the petitioners and others
with allegations of fraud and cheating, but the opinion of the
Delhi Police was that the dispute is civil in nature. With
such an opinion formed, no further enquiry was held,
directing the parties to go for a remedy approaching the civil
court or lodging a complaint before the State Police. The
complaint before the Delhi Police was followed by a
preliminary enquiry apparently discontinued with such
opinion and for no part of the cause of action to have taken
place within its jurisdiction. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged
with the EOW in 2021. The delay in lodging the complaint
before the Delhi Police and finally lodging of the FIR in
2021 is questioned by the petitioners. But reasons have been
assigned towards the delay by the informant and as to what
prevailed upon him to lodge the complaint in 2021. The
record reveals that the case was transferred to the EOW by
the Delhi Police after the FIR was lodged. Even though a
complaint was received by the Delhi Police, it did not
culminate into a final report or a chargesheet. As earlier
mentioned, a preliminary enquiry was held into the
allegations of the complainant. According to the State, any
such complaint to the Delhi Police is not an FIR either.
25 . Mr. Katikia, learned counsel relies on the decision in
T.T. Antony Vrs. State of Kerala and others (2001) 6
Page 23 of 29
SCC 181 to contend that the FIR being the second
complaint before the EOW besides the one lodged with the
Delhi Police, it could not have been entertained and
investigated upon. In the decision (supra), the second FIR
was lodged with a fresh case registered and under such
circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that there can
be no second report and any such investigation. It has been
held and observed therein that only information about the
commission of a cognizable offence with an FIR lodged in
the first place is to be entertained and all such subsequent
ones shall be covered by Section 162 Cr.P.C. In the instant
case, though there is a complaint, no case has been
registered by the Delhi Police and only a preliminary
enquiry was held, so to say and thereafter, it was
discontinued on the premise that the dispute is civil in
nature and no part of the cause of action took place within
its jurisdiction. In absence of any such threadbare
investigation with a final finding on the fraud alleged and
whether the cognizable offences have been committed by
the petitioners and others and with a preliminary enquiry,
the investigation was not taken further by the Delhi Police,
in the considered view of the Court, the FIR received by the
EOW leading to the registration of the case cannot be said to
be based on a second FIR. Upon receiving a complaint, a
preliminary enquiry may be made in the light of the decision
of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vrs. Government of
Uttar Pradesh and others (2014) 2 SCC 1 , but to
investigate into the allegation, it depends on whether
cognizable offences are made out or allegedly committed
Page 24 of 29
and only in such a situation, a case is registered and it has
not taken place upon receiving the complaint by the Delhi
Police. Having said that, this Court is not inclined to hold
that there is a second FIR before the EOW. So, the decision
T.T. Antony
in (supra) cited by Mr. Katikia, learned
counsel with any such contention on the maintainability of
the criminal action on the strength of the FIR alleging it to
be a second complaint is liable to be rejected.
26 . Similarly, the decision in Babubhai Vrs. State of
Gujarat & others (2010) 12 SCC 254 is inapplicable as
relied on by Mr. Katikia, learned counsel which is again
based on the facts that two FIRs were lodged in respect of
the same transaction which is impermissible in law. Had it
been a case registered by the Delhi Police, the FIR before
the EOW would have been treated as a statement under
Section 162 Cr.P.C. But when no case is registered by the
Delhi Police and only a preliminary enquiry was held with a
complaint received from the informant, by no stretch of
imagination, it can be said that the FIR before the EOW is a
second one and hence, hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. Having
considered the submissions of the learned counsels for both
the sides on the entertainability of the FIR by the EOW
alleging to be the second complaint, this Court is not in
agreement with the plea advanced since no case was
registered by the Delhi Police, rather, it transferred the
complaint to the EOW at a subsequent point of time which
led to the registration of a case for investigation.
Page 25 of 29
27 . This Court is aware of the decision in Shikhar
Chemicals Vrs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & another
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1643 to the effect that one is to
pursue a civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of money
and should not be permitted to institute criminal
proceedings to achieve the desired result. This Court is also
alive to the settled position of law decided in Priti Saraf
and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra) on the limitations
in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. From the side of the petitioners, it is claimed that
the dispute is civil in nature but criminality is alleged by the
informant. If a dispute is over a contract between the parties
and the recovery of the money payable under the contract
without any such criminal mischief being alleged, in such a
case, it has to be held that there is a civil liability to be
discharged with. Any complaint lodged alleging cheating,
but when the dispute is entirely rested on a civil contract,
law is well settled that it has to be quashed for the reason
that the person liable under the contract cannot be forced to
part with the money through a criminal prosecution. Law
does not allow any such action when the dispute is purely
civil in nature. But when fraud is alleged with mens rea and
commission of an offence cognizable in nature may arise
out of a contract, notwithstanding any such remedy under
the law to realize and recover the outstanding dues payable,
a criminal action is also to lie. It depends on the nature of
allegations made in the FIR and where it is claimed that
fraud is employed, a criminal prosecution shall follow suit
even though the informant has an option to go for a civil
Page 26 of 29
remedy. The petitioners have been accused of impersonation
and fraud. It is also alleged that the documents were
manufactured since found to be fake as it was in relation to
work orders purportedly issued. The accused persons
managed the transfer of money from the informant on a
promise to provide him high value contractual work, but all
the documents allegedly handed over found to be fake and,
hence, the initial complaint with Delhi Police and was
followed by the FIR. With such allegations in the FIR, it
cannot be said that the dispute is only confined to a contract
between the parties and civil in nature. This Court finds
from the FIR that apart from such other mischiefs alleged
against the petitioners, fraud is claimed with a conspiracy. It
has been alleged in the FIR that the petitioner in CRLMC
No.2887 of 2024 impersonated himself as an officer of
RAW and even a lady officer as a Treasury Officer. When
such is the nature of allegations in the FIR, it cannot be
claimed that the dispute is only civil. The mischief and the
element of criminality is prima facie revealed from the FIR
which is to be investigated upon by the EOW if in case it is
to continue with the same after a decision on the threshold
limit. So, the conclusion of the Court is that the criminal
action initiated against the petitioners cannot be brought to
an end on any such ground by claiming that it is just a civil
dispute between the parties based on the contract.
28 . This Court has taken judicial notice of the Apex Court
’s
decision in Arshad Neyaz Khan Vrs. State of Jharkhand
and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058 arising out of
Page 27 of 29
th
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3606 of 2024 dated 24
September, 2024, as therein, it has been held and concluded
that the criminal action was liable to be set aside as none of
the offences alleged was made out and it was with a
malafide intent found to have been initiated contrary to the
State of Haryana and others Vrs. Bhajan Lal
decision in
and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 . The above citation is
not applicable to the case of the petitioners being
distinguishable on facts. It is not that the complaint was
lodged before the Delhi Police with a criminal intent to
harass the petitioners and other accused persons nor was it
with the lodging of the FIR before the EOW. The
truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR
are to be looked into by the EOW or the District Police as
the case may be during investigation. On the face of the
record, no malfeasance is proved against the informant and
it cannot possibly be attributed to him alleging any such
malafide intent only to criminally prosecute the petitioners
and to harass them. When from the FIR, it is prima facie
made out that there is fraud and by fraudulent means the
informant was made to part with the money which he failed
to recover and the transactions are alleged to have been
followed by the documents claimed to be fake, it needs a
criminal investigation. Since no case was registered by the
Delhi Police, only it conducted a preliminary enquiry, the
informant failing to recover the amount from the petitioners
was left with no choice except lodging the FIR with the
EOW. Of course, further investigation in view of the
discussion earlier held is left to the decision of the EOW on
Page 28 of 29
its pecuniary limit prescribed as per the Circular or else to
transfer the case to the District Police.
29 . Accordingly, it is ordered.
30 . In the result, the CRLMCs stand disposed of with the
observations made and directions issued hereinabove for
compliance by the EOW rejecting the plea of the petitioners
for a complete discharge on any such grounds pleaded on
record. It is further directed that the EOW shall take a
decision on its pecuniary jurisdiction with reference to the
FIR and other materials relevant for the purpose at the
earliest, preferably within a month from today, paving the
way for the investigation to be held in accordance with law.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Alok/Balaram
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 25-Jun-2026 14:56:05
Page 29 of 29