Orissa High Court
Smt. Sadhna Soreng vs State Of Orissa (Vigilance) ..... ... on 12 August, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2684 of 2024
Smt. Sadhna Soreng ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Soumendra Pattanaik
-versus-
State Of Orissa (Vigilance) ..... Opposite Party
Mr. N. Moharana, Standing
Counsel for Vigilance
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
12.08.2025
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. Perused the
application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
to quash the entire vigilance case against the Petitioner in Sambalpur
Vigilance P.S. Case No.42 of 2018, which was registered for alleged
commission of offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(e) of P.C. (Amendment Act, 2018) and Section 109 of
IPC, pending for trial in the Court of learned Special Judge
(Vigilance), Sundargarh in V.G.R. Case No.13 of 2018.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner, who happens to be the wife of the principal accused in
Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.42 of 2018, has been arrayed as
an accused on the basis of the fact that she happens to be the wife of
the principal accused who is a teacher in a government school.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that during
investigation it was found that the principal accused, namely one
Ramlal Tanty is in possession of assets disproportionate to his
known sources of income to the tune of 81.77%. He further
submitted that the principal accused had acquired a land and
constructed a building in the name of his wife, the present Petitioner.
The only allegation against the present Petitioner is that the property,
which is the subject matter of dispute, stands recorded in the name
of the present Petitioner and a building has been constructed
thereupon.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his argument,
referred to the charge-sheet at Annexure-2 and submitted that the
present Petitioner has his own source of income and accordingly she
is an income tax assesse. In such view of the matter, learned counsel
for the Petitioner contended that the property in question belongs to
the Petitioner and the same has been erroneously added to the
immovable property of the principal accused and accordingly the
Petitioner has been made a co-accused in the above noted vigilance
case.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the judgment of this Court in Smt. E. Swarnalata @ P.
Swarnalata v. State of Odisha (Vigilance) in CRLMC No.2660 of
2023 decided on 06.03.2024 as well as in the case of Sasmita
Pradhan v. State of Odisha (Vig.) in CRLMC No.3657 of 2024
decided on 16.04.2025. By referring to the above noted two
judgments, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
Petitioner, who happens to be a housewife, is having her own source
of income and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further specifically referred to the
observation of the Coordinate Bench in Para-5 of the judgment in
Smt. E. Swarnalata's case (supra). In such view of the matter, he
further contended that the present Petitioner could not have been
impleaded as a co-accused with the aid of Section 107 of the IPC
and, as such, is not liable to be punished under Section 109 of the
IPC. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended
that the entire criminal proceeding is liable quashed.
7. Mr. Moharana, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
Department on the other hand submitted that the application field by
the Petitioner for quashing of the entire proceeding is thoroughly
misconceived. He further submitted that the immovable property
which is in dispute has been acquired by the husband of the
Petitioner, who happens to be a government employee, and for the
aforesaid purpose the Petitioner participated in the alleged crime to
the extent of acquiring such assets in her name. Thus, learned
Standing Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner cannot take
the plea of an innocent housewife as she has claimed herself to be an
income tax assesse and she has filed her income tax returns.
Therefore, it was contended that there exists ample material against
the present Petitioner to implicate her in the present crime as an
abettor. Thus, the vigilance department has not committed any
illegality in adding the present Petitioner as a co-accused to the
alleged crime.
8. Mr. Moharana, learned Standing Counsel for Vigilance
Department also referred to the judgment of this Court in Anuradha
Negi v. State of Odisha (Vigilance) in CRLMC No.1520 of 2024
decided on 07.12.2024. By referring to the aforesaid judgment
learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department contended
that the learned Coordinate Bench has clearly distinguished the
judgment in Smt. E. Swarnalata's case (supra) as well as in Sujata
Nanda v. State of Orissa (GA) decided in CRLREV No.433 of 2012.
The fine line of distinction that has been drawn by the learned
Standing Counsel for Vigilance Department is that the cases which
the Petitioner has relied upon in support of his contention are based
on the fact that the accused persons were not income tax assesses
and they were not filing regular income tax returns. Accordingly, the
learned Coordinate Bench has distinguished those two decisions in
Anuradha Negi's case (supra). The aforesaid distinction has been
clearly spelt out in Para-10 & 11 of the judgment in Anuradha
Negi's case (supra).
9. So far the judgment of this Court in Sasmita Pradhan's case
(supra) is concerned, the learned Standing Counsel for Vigilance
contended that although the Petitioner in that case was the wife of
the principal accused, however, she was implicated in the offence
only with the aid of Section 109 of IPC. Further, the facts of that
case are completely different from the case of the Petitioner. In
Sasmita Pradhan's case (supra) the Petitioner had an established
business and she was a regular income tax assesse. The business of
the Petitioner in that case was not disputed by the department.
Whereas, in the present case, the business that has been carried out
by the Petitioner has been seriously questioned by the department
and it has been said that the income tax returns have been filed
falsely in the name of the Petitioner. Moreover, the immovable
assets were not acquired in the name of the Petitioner in Sasmita
Pradhan's case (supra). On such ground, learned Standing Counsel
contended that the judgment of this Court in Sasmita Pradhan's
case (supra) could not help the Petitioner much in the present case.
10. In reply to the contention raised by learned Standing Counsel
for Vigilance, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
although the property which has been acquired in the name of the
Petitioner in the present case is well within the income limit as has
been disclosed in her income tax return, however, the building over
the property has been constructed with the money provided by her
husband who happens to be a government teacher. He further
contended that the Petitioner has also availed loan from the Bank for
construction of such property. Therefore, the assessment of
disproportionate assets to the tune of 81.77% is completely
erroneous and the same should not have been accepted by the
learned trial Court while accepting the charge-sheet.
11. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the background
facts of the present case, this Court at the outset observes that the
present application has been filed at the instance of the accused-wife
of the government servant for quashing of the entire criminal
proceeding as against the present Petitioner. The principal ground
that has been taken in the present application is based on the
observation of the learned Coordinate Bench in Para-5 of Smt. E.
Swarnalata's case (supra), i.e., it is usually the practice that an
unemployed wife is always dependant upon the will of her employed
husband more so when the wife is a housewife and does not have
any independent source of income of her own. Further, the learned
Coordinate Bench observed that because of the Petitioner's
relationship with the husband, as his wife, she is sometimes
unwillingly compelled to do certain acts at the instance of the
accused-husband. This happens because of the dominance of the
husband over the wife who is completely dependant upon the
husband. As such, the learned Coordinate Bench has drawn a
presumption that mere participation of the wife with her husband
cannot ipso facto prove the guilt of the Petitioner-wife.
12. The aforesaid analysis of the learned Coordinate Bench would
have helped the Petitioner in the present case if the property was not
acquired in the name of the present Petitioner and the building
would not have been constructed thereupon. Additionally, the
applicability of the aforesaid principle is negated by the fact that the
Petitioner has shown herself to be an income tax assesse and that she
was filing income tax returns. Prima facie examination of the record
does not justify the income of the wife for acquisition of the asset as
has been recorded by the vigilance department. On a careful leading
of the judgment in Smt. E. Swarnalata's case (supra) as well as in
Sasmita Pradhan's case (supra), this Court is of the view that those
two judgments have been rendered in a slightly different factual
scenario. Therefore, the end result of those two cases, i.e., quashing
of the criminal proceedings would not help the Petitioner in the
present case in view of the factual scenario involved in the
Petitioner's case.
13. This Court also examined the judgment in Anuradha Negi's
case (supra) relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for
Vigilance Department. In the said judgment the learned Coordinate
Bench has clearly drawn the distinction in Para-10 & 11 of the said
judgment on the basis of the facts of the cases in Smt. E.
Swarnalata's case (supra) and Sujata Nanda's case (supra). The
distinction is primarily based on the facts that although the Petitioner
in Smt. E. Swarnalata's case (supra) was not an income tax assesse
and that she was a pure housewife. In contradiction, in the present
case the Petitioner has shown her own source of income and that she
was filing income tax returns and the vigilance department have
found during investigation that she had no such source of income.
Thus, such finding of the investigating agency falsifies the stand of
the Petitioner. As such, the same is a matter of trial and in the
background of such dispute the entire criminal proceeding cannot be
quashed.
14. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual position,
further taking into consideration the principle laid down by this
Court in various judgments, as has been referred hereinabove, this
Court is of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, the exercise of the inherent power of this Court
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding would be an
illegality and the same will only amount to an abuse of process of
law. Therefore, while disposing of the present application without
interfering with the pending criminal proceeding, this Court directs
that the trial be expedited and the learned trial Court shall make
every endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of one year. The Petitioner is directed to
cooperate with the early conclusion of the trial.
15. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the CRLMC
stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Aug-2025 18:06:10
