ABHINAVA DALUA vs STATE OF ODISHA(VIG.)
- Court
- Odisha High Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 826 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.)
Abhinava Dalua Petitioner(s)
….
-versus-
State of Odisha and Anr. …. Opposite Party(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meru Sagar Samantaray, Adv.
Mr. Abinash Barik, Adv.
For Opposite Party(s) : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, SC
for the Department of Vigilance
Mr. Satya Ranjan Mulia, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-20.05.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.06.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present CRLMC No. 826 of 2026 seeking
quashing of the FIR dated 29.08.2022, charge-sheet dated 27.10.2022 and
final chargesheet dated 30.12.2022 arising out of Cuttack Vigilance Cell
P.S. Case No. 6 of 2022, now pending as VGR Case No. 13 of 2022 before
the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Dhenkanal. Cognizance has been
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
taken against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, as amended in 2018. The case is
essentially a vigilance trap case concerning alleged demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner while he was posted
as DSP/IIC, Dhenkanal Sadar Police Station.
ACTUAL ATRIX OF THE ASE
I. F M C :
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The prosecution case originates from a complaint lodged by Baidhar
Behera, who claimed to be engaged in coal transportation from the
Angul-Talcher side to Manguli Chhak. According to the complaint, the
petitioner allegedly demanded ₹ 15,000 per truck per month, amounting
to ₹ 30,000 for two trucks, for allowing the complainant’s trucks to pass
through his jurisdiction without obstruction. It was further alleged that
the petitioner threatened to “court challan” the vehicles and send the
complainant to jail if the monthly payment was not made.
(ii) On the basis of the complaint, the vigilance authorities organized a trap
operation. During the trap, the accompanying witness allegedly gave a
signal after demand and acceptance by the petitioner, whereafter the
vigilance team entered the room. The petitioner’s hand wash test result
allegedly turned pink, and the petitioner was arrested. The alleged
tainted cash was stated to have been recovered from the floor of the
room inside a sealed envelope, on which truck registration numbers
were written.
(iii) The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in CRLMC No.
2354 of 2023 challenging the FIR and chargesheet on the ground of mala
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
fide and false implication. The High Court, by order dated 03.08.2023,
disposed of the earlier CRLMC by observing that the contentions raised
could be considered at the stage of framing of charge and granted
liberty to the petitioner to move an application for discharge before the
trial court. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed W.P.(C) No. 32597 of 2024
relating to supply of documents in the departmental proceeding, and
pursuant to the High Court’s order dated 16.01.2025, documents
including sanction materials were supplied to him.
(iv) The present CRLMC has been filed after the petitioner obtained further
materials from the department and from transport authorities through
RTI. The dispute now centres around whether these subsequently
obtained documents reveal such serious inconsistencies in the
prosecution case that continuation of the criminal proceeding would
amount to abuse of process, or whether these are disputed factual issues
which must be tested only during trial or at the stage of charge.
II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE P ETITIONER :
3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Meru Sagar Samantaray
earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner contends that the entire trap case is a false, engineered
and mala fide proceeding, allegedly set up at the instance of persons
connected with mining and coal transportation activities in the area.
According to him, the prosecution story that the complainant needed
the petitioner’s permission or indulgence for movement of trucks is
inherently doubtful because the vehicle details obtained later show that
the trucks relied upon by the complainant were either not roadworthy,
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
not in operation, not under the complainant’s effective control, or
wrongly described in the prosecution papers.
(ii) The petitioner places heavy reliance on the vehicle records to argue that
the foundation of the trap case is itself suspicious. It is contended that
one truck bearing No. OD-04M-4595, allegedly belonging to the
complainant, had already been repossessed by Tata Motors Finance on
14.04.2022 at Jalda, Rourkela; its national permit had been surrendered
and cancelled on 12.08.2022; and its ownership was subsequently
transferred. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the complainant
could not have genuinely required police clearance for the said truck’s
coal transportation on 29/30.08.2022.
(iii) The petitioner further points to inconsistencies regarding the truck
registration numbers appearing in the FIR, seizure lists, chargesheet and
final chargesheet. According to him, the complaint and envelope
containing the tainted cash refer to two trucks, whereas different
portions of the chargesheet refer to three trucks, and there is confusion
between OD-09H-4875 and OR-09H-4875. He also asserts that one of the
numbers allegedly referred to a three-wheeler passenger auto, while
another vehicle was without fitness, insurance, road permit and tax. On
this basis, the petitioner argues that the prosecution version is not
merely weak but fundamentally unreliable.
(iv) The petitioner contends that the vigilance team failed to conduct proper
pre-trap verification regarding the complainant’s antecedents, the actual
existence and operational status of the trucks, and the genuineness of
the alleged need for illegal gratification. According to him, public-
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
domain transport records were either ignored or suppressed during
investigation, thereby raising serious doubts about fairness of
investigation and showing that the criminal process was used as a
vehicle for abuse of power.
(v) The petitioner also challenges the evidentiary worth of the alleged
recovery. He argues that the tainted cash was not recovered from his
conscious possession but from the floor of the room, making the
recovery suspicious. He further submits that the lack of videography
during the trap operation creates scope for planting of evidence, use of
force or manipulation of the trap narrative. The petitioner therefore
relies on the principle that mere recovery of tainted money is not
sufficient unless demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal
gratification are established.
(vi) The petitioner invokes judgments such as Neeraj Dutta v. State Govt.
1
of NCT of Delhi , P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of
2 3
Police, State of Andhra Pradesh , State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao and
4
Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab to contend that proof of demand and
acceptance is indispensable under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. He argues that the prosecution case is based on
interested and hand-picked witnesses, that other truck owners were not
made witnesses, and that the complainant’s motive has not been fairly
investigated. Therefore, according to him, the case suffers from serious
legal and factual infirmities justifying quashing at the threshold.
1
(2023) 4 SCC 731
2
(2015) 10 SCC 152
3
2012 AIR SCW 2879
4
AIR 1976 SC 91
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
(vii) The petitioner also submits that the present CRLMC is not a mere
repetition of the earlier CRLMC because the present challenge is based
on materials supplied by the department and obtained from RTO
authorities after the earlier High Court order dated 03.08.2023.
According to him, the new material now available demonstrates abuse
of process and false implication, and therefore the High Court’s
extraordinary jurisdiction can be invoked notwithstanding the earlier
liberty to raise the issues at the stage of discharge.
III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTIES :
4.
The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties Mr. Niranjan Moharana,
Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The opposite party/informant contends that the present petition is not
maintainable because the petitioner had already approached the High
Court earlier in CRLMC No. 2354 of 2023 and the Court had disposed of
that application by granting liberty to raise all available contentions
before the trial court at the stage of framing of charge. According to the
opposite party, instead of obeying that order and approaching the trial
court for discharge, the petitioner has again filed a fresh CRLMC with
substantially the same prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding.
(ii) The opposite party submits that this is a trap case where the
prosecution has already collected material showing demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification. It is asserted that the complainant’s
statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and that the trap
operation resulted in recovery of tainted money after the alleged
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
demand and acceptance. Therefore, according to the opposite party, the
case contains sufficient material for trial and cannot be quashed merely
on the basis of the petitioner’s defence.
(iii) The opposite party further relies on the fact that the hand wash test
result of the petitioner turned pink during the trap operation.
According to the opposite party, this circumstance is a significant
incriminating material which the petitioner must explain during trial.
The opposite party therefore argues that the petitioner cannot seek
premature quashing by asking the High Court to appreciate disputed
facts, weigh the evidence, or accept his explanation before the
prosecution has been allowed to prove its case.
(iv) The opposite party disputes the petitioner’s reliance on RTI documents
and transport records at the quashing stage. It is contended that
documents obtained under the RTI Act cannot automatically be treated
as proved evidence in a criminal proceeding unless they are properly
exhibited, proved through competent witnesses, and tested by cross-
examination. Therefore, according to the opposite party, the
authenticity, relevance and evidentiary value of such documents are
matters for trial and not grounds for quashing the proceeding at the
threshold.
(v) The opposite party also contends that the petitioner is attempting to
delay the trial by repeatedly invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the
High Court. Since cognizance has already been taken, chargesheet has
been submitted after investigation, and the earlier CRLMC was
disposed of with liberty to raise all issues before the trial court, the
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
present petition is described as a deliberate and repeated attempt to
stall the criminal proceeding. On this basis, the opposite party prays
that the CRLMC be dismissed in limine.
UDGMENT AND ANALYSIS
IV. J :
5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
6. Before turning to the rival contentions, it is necessary to recall the
modest compass within which this Court must move. A petition under
Section 482 does not open the doors of a trial. Rather, it tests only
whether the prosecution, as it presently stands, deserves to reach those
doors at all.
7. The present petition under Section 482 CrPC seeks quashing of the FIR
dated 29.08.2022, the chargesheet dated 27.10.2022, the final chargesheet
dated 30.12.2022, and the consequential proceeding in VGR Case No. 13
of 2022 pending before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Dhenkanal.
The challenge is founded on the plea that, after the earlier order of this
Court in CRLMC No. 2354 of 2023, the petitioner has procured further
departmental materials and transport records through RTI which,
according to him, expose the vigilance trap case as false and engineered.
The opposite parties, on the other hand, contend that the prosecution
materials already disclose demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification, that the complainant’s statement under Section 164 CrPC
and the trap materials are available, and that the petitioner is
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
attempting to have this Court undertake a factual evaluation which
belongs to the trial court.
8.
I am not inclined to non-suit the petitioner solely on the ground that
liberty had earlier been granted to move for discharge. The Supreme
5
Court has made it clear in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. , that the
availability or pendency of a discharge remedy does not by itself oust
the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. At the same
time, where an earlier order has already relegated the accused to the
charge stage, the High Court must exercise evident restraint and should
not permit Section 482 to become a surrogate for a discharge
proceeding. The Court held as follows:
“Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be
exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction
High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is
to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has
been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings
are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before
issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal
of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court
has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court
is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code,
Jurisdiction- under this Section has to be exercised to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice.
”
9. Now, with regard to limits of inherent jurisdiction, the governing
6
principles are well settled. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal identifies
the illustrative categories in which quashing may be justified. Moreover,
5
2000 2 SCC 636
6
1992 Supp 1 SCC 335
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
7
in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander , the Supreme Court has reiterated
that quashing of charge or prosecution is an exception, that the Court
must see whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie disclose
the offence, and that a meticulous evaluation of evidence is
impermissible at that stage. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
“Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of
continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly
satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit
continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that
initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the
records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of
the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima
facie.”
8
10.
Likewise, in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh , the
Supreme Court further cautioned that the High Court cannot conduct a
mini trial, cannot record findings on disputed facts, and cannot test the
defence as though the matter were being finally decided after evidence.
The relevant excerpts are produced below:
“From the impugned common judgment and order passed
by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt
with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was
conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was
considering the applications against the judgment and order
passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As
per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge
and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while
exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court
is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in
the common impugned judgment and order has observed
that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is
7
2012 9 SCC 460
8
2023 18 SCC 399
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency
is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are
required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the
evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency.
Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in
detail in the allegations and the material collected during
the course of the investigation against the accused, at this
stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very
limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether
any sufficient material is available to proceed further
against the accused for which the accused is required to be
tried or not”.”
11. The only limited window for looking at material produced by the
accused. The law does, however, leave open a single narrow window
through which the accused’s own material may be examined at the
threshold, and its dimensions were carefully examined in Rajiv Thapar
9
v. Madan Lal Kapoor . The material must be sound, reasonable,
indubitable, and of sterling and impeccable quality. It must completely
rule out the prosecution version, be incapable of justifiable refutation,
and make continuation of the prosecution an abuse of process. If the
material merely creates doubt, opens a line of defence, or requires
evidentiary proof and cross examination, quashing is not warranted.
The Court held as follows:
“ 23. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing
paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to
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.:
9
2013 3 SCC 330
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused
is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material 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?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial
conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash
such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power,
besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious
court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding
such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom)
specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude
in the conviction of the accused.”
12. Now, this Court must turn to Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. There can be no quarrel with the legal proposition pressed by the
petitioner that proof of demand and acceptance is central to a conviction
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In Neeraj Dutta v.
10
State Govt of NCT of Delhi , the Constitution Bench summarised that
proof of demand and acceptance is a sine qua non, that mere recovery is
10
2023 4 SCC 731
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
not enough, and that presumptions can arise only once foundational
facts are proved. The Court held as follows:
“ What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised
as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by
a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a
sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused
public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d)(i) and(ii) of
the Act.
….”
13. P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of
11
Andhra Pradesh , states the same in clear terms. The later decisions in
12
K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana , and Soundarajan v. State
13
represented by the Inspector of Police , reiterate that demand of
gratification is not a mere demand for money and that recovery de hors
proof of demand is insufficient for conviction.
14. But those authorities address the standard for conviction after evidence
is recorded, tested, and appreciated. K. Shanthamma (supra) was a
criminal appeal after trial, where the Supreme Court assessed
inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and found that the demand
or acceptance had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. That
standard cannot be mechanically transplanted to a Section 482 challenge
against an FIR and chargesheet. At this stage, the Court is not to decide
whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed. The only question is
whether the prosecution materials, taken as they stand, disclose the
offence and justify the accused being put to trial.
11
2015 10 SCC 152
12
2022 4 SCC 574
13
2023 16 SCC 141
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
15. It is well to remember that doubt and certainty do not occupy the same
place in this jurisdiction. Doubt is the very material of a trial. It is raised,
tested, and resolved through the examination of witnesses and the
scrutiny of documents. Certainty of the kind that can halt a prosecution
at its inception is of an altogether higher order, for it must leave no
room for the case to be proved at all. Material that unsettles the
prosecution is therefore not the same as material that destroys it. The
first invites a trial; only the second forecloses one. A Court asked to
quash must satisfy itself that what it confronts is the latter, and not a
promising foundation for cross-examination dressed in the language of
impossibility.
16. Tested on the above standard, the documents relied on by the petitioner
do not satisfy the required threshold. Even if the transport records
regarding repossession of truck No. OD-04M-4595, surrender or
cancellation of permit, transfer of ownership, lack of fitness, insurance,
tax, or the alleged mismatch in registration marks are taken at face
value, they do not lead to the indubitable conclusion that the vigilance
case is impossible or fabricated. At the highest, they arm the petitioner
with a substantial line of defence that the complainant had misstated
the status of the vehicles, that his transport narrative was doubtful, or
that his motive requires closer scrutiny. Material of this kind may bruise
the prosecution, but it does not result in a breakdown. Only the latter
justifies quashing, whereas the former belongs to trial.
17. The remaining discrepancies as submitted by the petitioner stand on the
same footing. The complaint refers to two trucks where other parts of
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
the record refer to three. One registration number appears as "OD" in
some places and "OR" in others, and another is said to belong to an
altogether different class of vehicle. The tainted money is said to have
been recovered from the floor rather than from the petitioner's hand, the
trap was not recorded on video, the pre-trap verification is alleged to
have been incomplete, and the other truck owners were never examined
as witnesses. Each of these may, as the petitioner contends, point to a
fabricated case. They may equally turn out to be clerical errors or
innocuous gaps in the investigation. Which of the two it is cannot be
determined on the strength of rival affidavits. It can be answered only
after the witnesses are examined and tested in cross-examination.
18. The petitioner’s argument of mala fides also cannot carry the matter to
quashing on the present record. Bhajan Lal (supra) itself makes clear
that mala fides or personal animus is only one illustrative category and
does not justify quashing where the allegations, taken at face value,
disclose a cognizable offence. The judicial precedents have repeatedly
said that the Court cannot, at a premature stage, anticipate the result of
the trial and render a conclusive finding on the plea of false implication
merely on the basis of the accused’s rival narrative. If the prosecution
materials disclose the offence, the plea of vendetta has to be tested on
evidence.
19. There is another difficulty in the petitioner’s way. At the pre-trial stage,
the accused cannot seek adjudication of his defence material or invite
the Court to conduct a mini-trial. The Court is required to proceed on
the assumption that the prosecution material is true, examine only
Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
whether the basic ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed, and
refrain from undertaking a roving enquiry into the merits,
contradictions or probable defence. If such restraint governs even the
stage of discharge, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 must
necessarily be exercised with still greater caution, particularly in a trap
case where the prosecution already alleges demand, acceptance,
positive hand-wash test result and recovery pursuant to the pre-
arranged signal.
V. C ONCLUSION :
20.
The inherent jurisdiction cuts both ways. It is meant to stop the abuse of
the court's process, but also to ensure that a genuine prosecution is not
strangled in its cradle. A Court that quashes too quickly saves the
accused from harassment only by saving the guilty from trial. Where
the materials, taken as they stand, disclose a cognizable offence,
restraint is not caution but justice.
21.
For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is unable to hold that the
present case falls within any of the recognised categories warranting
quashing. The allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in
investigation, if taken at their face value, do disclose a prima facie case
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The subsequently
obtained materials relied upon by the petitioner do not possess the
conclusive character required to completely displace the prosecution at
the threshold. They raise issues of credibility and evidentiary weight,
which must be tested before the trial court in accordance with law.
22. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed .
Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31
23. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are only for
the purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 482 CrPC
and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the
accusation or the defence.
24. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated 25 June, 2026/
Page 17