Ganeswar Pradhan vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 10 December, 2025

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                     CRLREV No. 882 of 2025

  Ganeswar Pradhan                ....                       Petitioner

                                           Mr. G. Muduli,
                                                  Muduli Advocate

                               -versus-

  State of Odisha                 ....                  Opposite Party
                                            Mr. Sangram Das, S.C.
                                                              S.C
                                          For Vigilance Department


                       CORAM:
      THE HON'BLE
              BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
                    Date of Judgment: 10.12.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore in T.R. Case No.1 of 2025 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for discharge has been called in question in this revision.

2. The background facts of the case are that one Naba Kumar Ray of VIP Colony, Colony Chidiapol, who is a license holder of IMFL Off Shop having License No.02/2019/0024 reported before Superintendent Vigilance, Balasore alleging that he was informed over phone by ASI Pradeep Kumar Mohanty of Chandipur Police Station to meet the newly joined IIC, Ganeswar Pradhan (the Petitioner) for discussion and accordingly, accordingly he went to the Chandipur Police Station and the IIC demanded Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) per month for running the IMFL Off Shop. It is further alleged that when the said Naba Kumar Ray expressed his inability to pay such huge amount and requested to reduce the amount, the IIC stuck to his demand and accordingly, he went to police station where the IIC II instructed him to pay the amount by the next day to the A.S.I. Finding no other way, being aggrieved, the said Naba Kumar Ray intimated the fact to the S.P Vigilance Division, Balasore requesting him for initiation of a legal action. On 19.07.2023, the A.S.I. A.S.I. Pradeep Kumar Mohanty asked the said Naba Kumar Ray over phone instructing him to come immediately with demanded money along with one Johnnie Walker Black Label bottle liquor.. The telephonic conversation between complainant and Pradeep Kumar Mohanty @ Bali Mohanty was recorded in his mobile phone. The said mobile recording was played before the vigilance staff and thereafter there the matter having been registered in Vigilance P.S. Case No.18 No of 2023 and a trap was laid. The ASI of Police, was caught red handed nded while accepting the demanded bribe money amounting to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), only) investigation commenced and Charge-Sheet Charge Sheet was submitted under Section 7 of the PC Act. The Petitioner moved an application before the learned Court of Special Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore under Section 250 of the BNSS praying for his discharge. The learned trial court having heard the Parties vide the impugned order dated 19.10.2025, declined to grant the prayer. The Petitioner, being aggrieved thereby, moved this this application, inter alia, on the ground that the Petitioner has been implicated in the case solely on the basis of the statement of the ASI Pradeep Kumar Mohanty in absence of any convincing material against the Petitioner so also

there is no material in respect to the present Petitioner with regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe, which constitutes the essential ingredient for framing of charge under Section 7 of P.C. Act can be framed. It is further submitted that the witness witnes Subhendu Kumar Kar (C.S.W-3) (C.S.W 3) has not stated anything incriminating against the Petitioner, and even the complainant has neither clearly nor consistently alleged that the Petitioner demanded or accepted any bribe from him.

3. Mr. Muduli, learned counsel forr the Petitioner, in course of the hearing in the application, submitted that the Complainant is no way connected with the alleged demand or acceptance of bribe by the ASI Pradeep Kumar Mohanty and as such, his implication in the aforesaid offence is based on surmises and conjectures and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned court deserves to be set aside.

4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned counsel for the State (Vigilance) on the other hand, vehemently opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and inter alia, drew the attention of this Court to the FIR. He further submitted that the statement ement of the Complainant and other witnesses in course of the investigation clearly discloses the Petitioner to be the king pin of the said demand, who accepted the bribe through the ASI. The very allegations made in the FIR to the effect that the Petitioner Petition called the Complainant to the police station and demanded the said amount of Rs.50,000/-

Rs.50,000/ to be paid to him every month and in sequel to the same, directed to comply the same through the ASI.

ASI It is tell-

tale clear not only from the FIR but also from the statement of the

Complainant in course of the investigation. He further submitted that the very contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the fact that there is no material against the Petitioner is far from truth. The Petitioner, in active active collusion with the ASI of Police, not only demanded but also accepted the bribe money.

money

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the respective Parties and on perusal of the FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded in course of the investigation investigation candidly discloses that it is the Petitioner, who instructed the ASI of police concerned to ensure that the Complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-

Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per month to run his business of liquor shop. This is in furtherance of his instruction passed on to the Complainant, calling him to the Police Station under threat not only by a gesture being running the business but otherwise sticking to his demand despite the request made by the Petitioner. The conversation between the Petitioner etitioner and the Complainant with regard to the demand and execution of the direction through the ASI clearly implicates him in the aforesaid case.

6. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the he Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vss. Dilipsingh Rao reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, Kishorsingh Rao, 1294 held as follows, laying down the guiding principles pertaining to the Court's jurisdiction while considering an application for discharge

"11. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression "the record of the case" used in Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at

the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency.

12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence exis of a prima-facie facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of prima-

prima facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion conclusi of trial.

13. The power and jurisdiction of Higher Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this court in Amit it Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460 where scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under:

"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded well founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of

this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction jurisdictio can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

versely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.

13. Another well-accepted well accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much-advanced much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC."

14. This Court in the aforesaid judgement has also laid down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 particularly in the context of prayer for quashing of charge framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. is sought for as under:

"27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional jurisdictiona distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section Section 397 or

Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be:

27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers.

powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can everever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.

27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of whether which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading lead to injustice.

27.13. 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 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."

15. The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not legally permissible. The High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that trial court was was dealing with an application for discharge."

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, it clearly emerges that it was the Petitioner er who instructed the concerned ASI of Police to ensure that the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-

50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per month for running his liquor shop. This is in furtherance of the instruction issued by the Petitioner to the Complainant, t, calling him to the Police Station and, by way of threat, both implicit in relation to the running of the business and otherwise, insisting on his demand despite the Complainant's request for reduction. The conversation between the Petitioner and the Complainant plainant relating to the demand and its execution through the ASI clearly implicates the Petitioner in the aforesaid case, and his involvement is further evident from the materials collected during investigation. The appreciation of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the telephonic conversation, and the challenge to the conduct of the trap are matters of defence and pertain to evidentiary evaluation, which cannot be undertaken at the stage of discharge.

discharge

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, and and having regard to the limited scope of interference at the stage of discharge, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order passed the learned

Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore in T.R. Case No.1 of 2025. The Petitioner shall accordingly face face trial and is at liberty to urge all grounds available to him in accordance with law during the course of the proceedings. The CRLREV,, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. I.A.,, if any, also stands stand disposed of.

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Bijay

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA