Ajay Agarwal vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S)
2025 Latest Caselaw 7093 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ajay Agarwal vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 16 April, 2025

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  CRLMC No. 3968 of 2024
                 Ajay Agarwal                    ....               Petitioner(s)
                                                Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate


                                           -versus-

             State of Odisha                     ....          Opposite Party(s)
                                                          Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA

                     CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

                                          ORDER

Order No.                                16.04.2025
 08.        1.        Heard.

2. The petitioner is seeking two reliefs in this petition namely, quashing of Khordha Sadar P.S. Case No. 214 of 2024 registered against him registered under Section 379/406 of IPC read with Section 51 of Orissa Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 2016. Secondly, de-freezing of three of his bank accounts which has been frozen by his bankers at the instance of investigating agency communicated to him vide letter dated 20.09.2024.

3. Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily taking me to Annexure-2 submits that the entire FIR is based on the report of the Mining Consultant of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA) Sri Chandrabhanu Das. However, the same consultant vide letter dated 20.03.2024 has negated his earlier report. Therefore, the basis of the entire FIR goes. Hence, he seeks quashing of the FIR.

4. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that the petitioner was selected as lessee of 'Dhania New Building Stone Quarry Uttara Taraf (Da), Kaipadar stone quarry being the highest bidder at the auction dated 02.08.2018 and although he had received environmental clearance for the said quarry on 03.03.2022, he had suppressed the same and had not submitted it at Informant's office for a period of 7 months but had submitted it on 14.10.2022 and had also not deposited royalty and other dues amounting to Rs. 58,70,538/- for the financial year 2023-24, which he was noticed to deposit by letter dated 11.11.2022 and without execution of any agreement and necessary blasting permission from the competent authority, the petitioner had illegally extracted building stones of a total quantity of 1,47,873 cum. from the quarry upto 31.03.2023. Further, although he was noticed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,90,24,702/- as penalty for illegal mining within a period of 15 days vide office letters nos. 14224 dtd. 08.11.2023 & 9933 dtd. 02.08.2024, he had not deposited the same and had dishonestly misappropriated minor minerals. Hence, FIR in connection with Khordha Sadar P.S. Case No. 214 of 2024 has been registered corresponding to G.R. Case No. 754 of 2024 pending in the court of the learend S.D.J.M., Khordha for the alleged commission of offences punishable u/s 379 & 406 IPC ( u/s. 316, 303 B.N.S. 2023) r/w sec. 51(l)(i) of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016.

5. Notice was issued to the opposite party with a direction to verify the authenticity and veracity of the letter dated 20.03.2024 issued by the Mining Consultant of SJTA, Puri. Pursuance thereto, the investigating officer, i.e., IIC, Sadar Police Station, Khordha has

submitted a written report dated 07.02.2025. The relevant part of the report reads as under:

"10. That, the mining consultant Sri Chandrabhanu Das was examined and his statement has been recorded u/s. 180 BNSS. (Copy enclosed).

11. That as a report produced by the petitioner before Hon'ble Court of Sri Chandrabhanu Das to Temple administration, Puri vide letter No. 146/2023-24,dtd. 20.03.2024, that as per rule 43 (2) of OMMCR 2023, the quarry lease is valid from the date of registration of the lease deed. As in this context the lease was not executed till May 2023, the present lessee could not be responsible for the excavations made within QL. area before the execution of the lease in his favour. However on further examination and in letter No. 8210, dtd. 01.12.2024, the competent authority cum Sub- Collector, Khordha submitted para-wise compliance that as per tender notification number 7329, dtd. 07.07.2018 of SJTA, Puri with terms and condition in which vide Sl.No.09, it has been clarified as against the bidder for producing a legal documents within stipulated period and lease holder is solely responsible to watch the quarry against any mishap. Accordingly the petitioner is selected as highest bidder on dtd. 2.8.2018 with terms and condition and communicated in safe of form-F by Sub-collector, Khordha cum Completent Authority vide letter No. 8937, dtd. 16.08.2018.

12. That, a notice u/s. 179 BNSS has served to Sri Chandrabhanu Das, Mining Consultant, SJTA Puri to appear at PS for further examination and cross examination. Accordingly Sri Chandrabhanu Das the then mining Consultant appeared at Ps and his further examination BNSS was recorded U/S-180 BNSS."

6. Relying upon the aforementioned report, the learned State Counsel submits that investigation in the present case is still going on. He further submits that it is premature at this stage to delve upon the merit of the case, as investigation in the present case is in

the midway. Hence, he submits that this Court may not give indulgence to the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR relying upon the letter dated 20.03.2024 issued by the Mining Consultant.

7. In view of the aforementioned, I am in agreement with the submission made by the Ld. State Counsel. The investigation is at a nascent stage. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is forbidden to abruptly quash the FIR impending investigation. Hence, in so far as the first prayer is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation at this stage. Hence, the petition fails with regard to the first prayer of the petitioner. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer at the appropriate stage, if cause of action arose.

8. In so far as the second prayer is concerned, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the competent authority has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,90,24,702/- as penalty for illegal mining on the basis of the opinion of the Mining Consultant of the SJTA. He submits that the petitioner has assailed the said order before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 26039 of 2024 and the Division Bench of this Court while issuing notice to the opposite parties in that case has stayed the impugned order imposing and demanding penalty. The said writ petition is still pending. Mr. Panda, has also relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 10.04.2025 in CRLMC No. 660 of 2024 [Lakshman Srinivasan vrs. Republic of India (CBI)] and submits that this Court has already laid down guideline regarding interim release of articles or freeze accounts in cases where investigation is going on. He has relied upon the guidelines

formulated by this court in Lakshman Srinivasan (supra), which reads as under:-

".......... By taking into consideration, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundarbhai (supra) judgment and various other High Courts, this Court feels it expedient to cull out following principles regarding disposal of the seized article in form of broader guidelines, which may not be exhaustive but to some extent inclusive:

1. xxx xxx xxx

2. xxx xxx xxx

3. Releasing of Bank Deposits/Fixed Deposits 3.1 Bank deposits and/or fixed deposits may be released against similar or varied amount of property securities or bank guarantee made by the accused petitioner, as per the direction of the competent authorities or court. 3.2 Such bank deposits/fixed deposits, shall not be released, in case when attachment and/or confiscation proceeding regarding the same assets have already been initiated. In such cases the release shall be decided by the competent court."

Relying upon the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Lakshman Srinivasan (supra), Mr. Panda, submits that some suitable direction may be passed for de-freezing the accounts which has been frozen by the investigating agency and he seeks quashing of Annexure-3 to the petition.

9. Regarding being had to the fact scenario of the present case and the judgment cited at the Bar, I am of the considered view that the account of the petitioner in the Axis Bank having (1) A/c No. 914020054634413 (Branch-Bhadrak), (2)- A/c No. 912010024965526 (Branch- Jajpur), (3)- A/c No. 917010021279243 (Branch- CRPF), (4)- A/c No. 913010008197340 (Branch- Bhadrak) in the name of petitioner-

Ajay Agarwal, S/o- Late Ramdas Agarwal, Plot No.143, VIP Colony, Nayapalli, IRC Village, Bhubaneswar-751015 having Aadhar No.3829 8755 1218, be de-freezed by the investigating agency, subject to the petitioner furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs.2.00 crores (Rupees two crores) before the Jagarnath Temple administration. The temple administration shall communicate the furnishment of the bank guarantee of Rs.2.00 crores before it by the petitioner to the investigating agency. On receipt of such information, the Investigating Officer shall communicate the same to the concerned banks for de-freezing of the accounts of the petitioner.

10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC is disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok

Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Apr-2025 18:40:19