Orissa High Court
Krupasindhu Gahan vs State Of Odisha on 19 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 201 of 2025
Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read
with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
--------------
Krupasindhu Gahan ...... Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through
its Secretary, Home Department,
Bhubaneswar
2. The Director General of Police, Cuttack
3. The Superintendent of Police, Angul
4. The Officer -in- Charge, Talcher
5. Mr. Akhil Prasad Mishra
6. Mrs. Tapaswini Mohapatra ...... Opp. Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Ms. Sarita Moharana, A.S.C.
and Mr. S.N. Biswal, A.S.C.
(for O.P. Nos.1 to 4)
Mr. D.P. Nanda, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Biswajit Nayak, Advocate
(for O.P. Nos. 5 and 6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
19.06.2025
Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMC has been filed with the following prayer:-
"Therefore, under the facts and circumstances as
narrated above, this Hon'ble Court may graciously
be pleased to issue notice to the Opposite Parties
and after hearing the parties be pleased to quash the
impugned Order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the Ld.
S.D.J.M., Talcher in G.R. Case No. 1198 of 2024
and may transfer of investigation of the case bearing
F.l.R. No. 641, dated 06.08.2024, registered at
Talcher P.S., District - Angul, under Section 408,
506, 34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 66C, 66D of
the I.T. Act, to Economic Offences Wing, Police
Station, Bhubaneswar, District - Khordha, Odisha,
to secure the ends of justice and to ensure fair,
transparent and judicious investigation of the
complaint made by the Complainant / Petitioner,
and further be pleased to pass any other order or
orders as deemed fit and proper;
And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall
be duty-bound and shall ever pray."
BRIEF FACTS
2. On 06.08.2024 the Petitioner filed an FIR against
opposite party No. 5 - Akhil Prasad Mishra who was working as a
computerist and accountant in his office had misappropriated a lot
of money. On the basis of his complaint, Talcher P.S. Case No. 641
of 2024 Under Sections 408 / 506 / 34 of I.P.C. was registered
against opposite party No.5 Akhil Prasad Mishra on 06.08.2024,
the same day. This corresponds to G.R. Case No. 1198 of 2024
filed before the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher.
ALLEGATIONS IN THE FIR
3. The informant Krupasindhu Gahan is the Proprietor of
Maa Santoshi Transporter. The accused was working as
computerist and accountant in his Office since 2018. He used to
receive cheques and withdraw money from office and used the
software password, OTP, and server of the office. Using his
personal laptop, he illegally transferred approximately Rs 1 crore
from the four Federal Bank accounts of the informant bearing
Account numbers -19300200001959, 2544, 717, and 3328, into his
own accounts bearing Account numbers 20229300267,
5010033095, 20229300 and also to his wife's account bearing
Account number 3784411444 in a phased manner. Akhil Prasad
Mishra, his wife and 11-year-old son, had been staying in the house
of the informant. On 04.08.2024, getting some information that his
illegal activities had been discovered, he left with his family and
returned alone to the office. He confessed his guilt that he did all
those frauds and promised to repay the misappropriated amount
gradually. But latter, opposite party No.6, his wife threatened the
informant's wife, Jayanti Gahan, over phone stating that her
husband would send them to jail. It was stated in the FIR that as
Akhil Prasad Mishra had good knowledge about computers, he
used his laptop and by surreptitiously utilized the password, server,
LTI and Software of the office. If an enquiry is done, the total
amount of money taken from the accounts of the informant and
transferred to his accounts would be known. Both husband and
wife have conjointly cheated and misappropriated the money and
threatened to kill the informant and destroy the entire database of
the computer. He has utilized the misappropriated money for
purchasing land, flat and invested in online share market. He had
taken a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- in cash from wife of the informant
over a period of time, under the pretext of being used for official
expenses.
4. Aggrieved by the nature and pace of investigation, an
application was filed by the petitioner - informant before the
learned Magistrate to monitor the investigation of the case and
direct the investigating officer to apprehend the absconding co-
accused Tapaswini Mohapatra and to hold proper investigation by
examining all the account holders who were not entitled to any
amount, but had been paid money by the accused by misutilising
his entrusted position as the accountant from the account of the
informant and subsequently crediting the amount to the accounts
of the accused as per Annexure No. A to D and to search the
money trail in an expeditious manner and to ascertain the exact
quantum of misappropriation and in case of failure of the
Investigating Officer to carry out such direction, make appropriate
recommendation for disciplinary action against the erring police
officials under Section 217 and 166-A(b) of the IPC.
IMPUGNED ORDER
5. The application was disposed of on 05.10.2024 by the
learned S.D.J.M., Talcher observing and directing as follows:-
"In view of the above proposition of law and
considering the above facts and circumstances,
nature and gravity of the offences and the stage of
investigation, as huge amount of money has been
misappropriated in this case, though this court
cannot instruct the investigating officer on how to
carry out the investigation but this court can direct
to the I.O. to conduct a fair and proper investigation
which is required to ascertain the exact quantum of
amount of misappropriation and whether any other
persons are involved along with the accused Ambika
Prasad Mishra. Consequently, this court is inclined
to partly allow the prayer made by the petitioner on
the petition. Accordingly, the I.O./I.I.C of Talcher
P.S is directed to investigate the case in a fair and
proper manner expeditiously without any delay in
the interest of justice."
SUBMISSION
6. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, learned Senior Counsel
referring to the EOW Circular No.1 of 2019, submitted that in
cases involving financial fraud, where the amount is more than one
crore, the investigation can be taken up by the EOW. She also
submitted that during hearing of the application for cancellation of
bail of opposite party no.6-Tapaswini Mohapatra in the Supreme
Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 2635 of 2025, the learned counsel for the
State had filed a counter affidavit dated 17.03.2025 where it has
been stated that the amount involved in the case is more than Two
Crore. She submitted that inspite of the order of the learned
Magistrate, the investigation is far from satisfactory as it is still not
complete and the bank and demat accounts of the accused persons
have not been frozen to secure the amount in their accounts which
are the proceeds of the crime. She submitted that in view of the
modus operandi of the crime and the nature of fraud committed and
the amount involved in this is a fit case where investigation should
be handed to EOW as it requires specialized investigation which
the local police is not capable of doing. She also submits that the
main accused Mr. Akhil Prasad Mishra - opposite party No. 5 is
still in custody but may be released on bail at any moment. Once he
is released on bail, he is likely to withdraw all amounts from his
accounts , if not already done , for which it will become difficult to
secure the money which he has dishonestly taken from the
petitioner. In support of her submission that this was a fit case
where investigation should be handed over to the EOW, she relied
on:-
i) The Circular No.1 of 2012 and Circular No.1 of 2019
of the EOW;
And the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of
ii) K.V. Rajendran vs. The Superintendent of Police, CBCID
South Zone, Chennai & Others reported in (2013) 12 SCC 480 ;
and
iii) Bharati Tamang vs. Union of India & Others reported in
(2013) 15 SCC 578.
7. Mr. D.P. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the opposite parties no. 5 and 6 submitted that the power of the
Court to transfer the investigation, should not be exercised for the
mere asking and should be done only in rare and exceptional cases
as such an order will affect the morale of the Investigating Officer
and the local police and have other adverse consequences. He also
submitted that in the present case, investigation has been partially
completed and preliminary charge sheet has been submitted. But
further investigation was going on, so the prayer of the petitioner
to hand over investigation to the EOW is liable to be rejected . He
also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of -
i) K.V. Rajendran (supra) as well as on the decision of the High
Court of Delhi in the case of ii) Renuka Kulkarni & Others vs.
State reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 764.
8. Supplementing the submissions of the learned Senior
Counsel, Mr. Biswajit Nayak, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of opposite party nos. 5 and 6 submitted that in the preliminary
charge sheet dated 05.10.2024, the amount involved has been stated
to be approximately Rs.87 lakhs, which is less than one crore.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE STATE GOVT. IN SLP
(Crl.) 2635 of 2025.
9. Perused the counter affidavit of the State filed in SLP
(Crl.) No. 2635 of 2025. In paragraph 9 it has been mentioned as
follows:-
"That the Investigation is not yet complete,
supplementary chargesheet is yet to be filed and as
per the Investigation the total amount
misappropriated by the husband of Respondent is
about Rs. 2 Crore."
10. As directed by the order dated 06.05.2025, Ms. Sarita
Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel produces the
instructions dated 07.05.2025 of the Superintendent of Police,
Economic Offences Wing, Bhubaneswar as well as the instructions
dated 07.05.2025 of the Inspector in Charge of Talcher Police
Station.
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE S.P., E.O.W
11. The contents of the instructions of the S.P. EOW dated
07.05.2025 are as under: -
"In inviting a kind reference to the CRLMC cited
above, instruction on behalf of Superintendent of
Police, Economic Offences Wing, CID, Crime
Branch, Bhubaneswar is as follows:
Economic Offences Wing, established in
February-2012 by the State Govt., is a specialized
investigating agency of the State to investigate into
Economic Offences cases. As per EOW Circular
No.01/2012, EOW used to take cases involving Rs.1
Crore or more. Again, as per EOW Circular
No.01/2019 the Economic Offence cases reported in
the district involving more than 20 Lakhs or more
will be treated as S.R.
However, the District Ss.P./Range DIGP/IGP can
treat Economic Offences cases as SR depending
upon the multitude and magnitude of the Economic
Offences.
Thus, Economic offence case involving Rs.20
Lakhs or more but less than Rs.1 Crore will be
investigated by the District Police by treating the
case as S.R.
Further, Talcher PS Case No.641/2024 has not
been taken charge by EOW, CID-CB, Bhubaneswar.
Copy of EOW Circular No.01/2012 and 01/2019
are enclosed herewith for kind reference.
In the above facts and circumstances, I am to
request Your Goodself to kindly impress upon the
Hon'ble Court accordingly."
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE IIC TALCHER POLICE
STATION
12. The contents of the report dated 07.05.2025 of the IIC
Talcher Police station are extracted below:
"With reference to the subject cited above, I beg to
submit that on dated 06.08.2024 informant Krupasindhu
Gahan (54), S/O- Lt. Mohan Charan Gahan of village
Angarua, PS- Talcher, Dist- Angul reported in writing
alleging therein that, he is the proprietor of Maa
Santoshi transport. Since 2018 he had appointed one
Akhila Prasad Mishra as accountant in his office. Akhila
Prasad Mishra was engaged to supervise the company
work like payment of employees, labour payment and
other official work. As he was well known about computer
and belongs to IT field, he had developed a data base
software to run the business of the informant. The
informant entrusted him with a good faith to use his
account numbers as 19305600000717 (Federal Bank),
19300200003328 (Federal Bank). 19300200001959
(Federal Bank), 19300200002544 (Federal Bank) for the
purpose of distributing money to his different
organizations / Parties. However, the alleged accused
misappropriated a cash of more than one corers to his
account as well as his wife's account instead of
distributing money to different business holders. When
the informant came to know the fact and opposed Akhil
Kumar Mishra, threatened him to kill in life. Hence the
informant reported the matter at PS for taking legal
action.
On the written report of Informant Talcher PS case
No-641, Dt-06.08.2024, U/S- 408/506/34 IPC was
registered and entrusted SI Debabrata Nayak for its
investigation. Subsequently as the case turned to U/S
408/506/34 IPC r/w section 66 (C)/66 (D) IT Act, IIC
Talcher PS took up investigation of the case
During investigation it came to light that this is a
true case U/S-408/420/465/468/471/120-B/506 IPC r/w
Section 66 (C)/66 (D) IT Act.
During investigation, it was ascertained that Maa
Santoshi Transport has Three accounts involved in this
case vide A/C No-19305600000717, 19300200003328
and 19300200001959 of Federal Bank. The petitioner
Akhil Prasad Mishra has three bank accounts involved in
this case vide A/C No-20229300267 of SBI, A/C No-
19300100047573 of Federal Bank and A/C No-
50100330958999 of HDFC Bank.
Preliminary investigation revealed that an amount
of Rs.87,79,231/- has been fraudulently transferred from
the company (Maa Santoshi Transport) account to the
accounts of accused Akhil Prasad Mishra and Tapaswini
Mohapatra directly. During further investigation it came
to light that the accused persons have cheated cash of
Rs.1,45,36,171/- from the petitioner using other means.
During verification of trading accounts transaction,
it came to light that the accused persons have invested
sum of Rs. 3,61,26,411/- in share trading Companies like
1- Money Licious Securities Pvt. Ltd, 2- Zerodha
Broking, 3-Fyer Securities, 4- Mirae Asset Capital, 5-
Finvasia Securities, 6- South Asian Stocks and 7-5 Paisa
Capital using different Demat accounts linked with their
bank accounts and also withdrawn cash of Rs.
1,93,14,548/- from the said trading accounts.
During verification it was found that an amount of
cash of Rs. 6,05,86,660/- has been credited in the bank
accounts of accused Akhil Prasad Mishra from the Year-
2018 to 2024. Details are given below:-
Total credit in SBI A/c vide
A/c No. 20229300267 is Rs. 1,08,95,068/-
Total credit in HDFC A/c
vide A/c No. 50100330958999 is Rs. 4,23,54,559/-
Total credit in Federal A/c-19300100047573
Rs. 73,37,033/-
_________________________________
Total cash of Rs.6,05,86,660/-
And an amount of cash of Rs. 1,14,26,321/- has
been credited in the bank accounts of accused Akhil
Prasad Mishra from the Year-2018 to 2024. Details are
given below:-
Total credit in SBI A/C vide
A/C No-37844114448 is Rs. 1,04,07,897/-
Total credit in HDFC
A/c vide A/c No.50100398329312 is Rs. 10,18,424/-
__________________________
Total cash of Rs. 1,14,26,321/-
Total amount of Rs.7,20,12,981/- has been credited
in the bank accounts of accused persons namely Akhil
Prasad Mishra and Tapaswini Mohapatra whereas the
accused Akhila Prasad Mishra has been received cash of
Rs. 16,28.000/- only as Salary from Maa Santoshi
Transport with effect from dt.01.07.2018 to 09.06.2024.
So far it is ascertained that more that cash of Rs.
1,45,36,171/- has been involved in this case and cheated
by the accused persons. However, to ascertain the exact
amount involved in this case, investigation on investment
in online trading and share marketing is under process.
During investigation, Final form has been submitted
against the accused Akhil Prasad Mishra vide Talcher
PS C.S No-647, Dt. 05.10.2024, U/S 408/506 IPC / r.w
Sec 66 (C)/66 (D) I.T Act keeping investigation open for
further investigation. Another accused Tapaswini
Mohapatra has been arrested and forwarded in the
Honours Court. Investigation regarding investment in
online trading and stock/share market is under progress.
This is for favour of kind information."
(emphasis supplied)
13. On 08.05.2025, when the matter had been listed, the
counsel had been heard and the hearing had been closed, and the
case had been posted to 15.05.2025 for producing the case diary
and instructions regarding steps taken to freeze the bank accounts
and demat accounts of the opposite parties No. 5 and 6.
14. On 15.05.2025, the IIC of Talcher Police Station,
appeared on virtual mode and the learned State Counsel produced
the case diary. On instructions Ms. Sarita Moharana learned
Additional Standing Counsel, pointed out from the case diary that
on 17.08.2024, i) the Federal Bank Account No. 193001000047573
of accused Akhila Prasad Mishra, ii) the HDFC Bank Account No.
50100330958999 of accused Akhila Prasad Mishra and iii) HDFC
Account No. 50100398329312 of Tapaswini Mohapatra has been
frozen. Pursuant to requisition of the S.I. of Talcher Police Station,
i) Account No. 20229300267 of Akhila Prasad Mishra of SBI,
Dhenkanal Bazar Branch and ii) Account No. 37844114448 of
Akhila Prasad Mishra of SBI, Bairi Branch has been frozen on
31.08.2024, pursuant to requisition.
Ms. Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel as
per instruction received from the I.I.C., Talcher Police Station.
submitted on 15.05.2025 that the demat accounts of the accused
persons had not been frozen.
15. In spite of order passed on 08.05.2025 for freezing the
bank accounts and demat accounts of Opposite Party No.5 Akhil
Prasad Mishra and his wife Opposite Party No.6 Tapaswini
Mohapatra, as the demat accounts of the two accused persons had
not been frozen, on 15.05.2025, the S.P. Talcher had been directed
to take action as per law against the IIC Talcher.
16. On 18.06.2025, when the case was posted for judgment,
some documents alongwith a MEMO were submitted by Mr.
Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel alongwith the
following documents:-
i) Letter No. l941/Talcher P.S, Angul, Dated 29.05.2025
addressed to the Compliance Officer, Moneylicious, Securities
Private Limited, 302, The Western Edge I, Off Western Express
Highway, Borivali East, Mumbai - 400066, Maharashtra, India
requesting for Freezing Demat Account No. 120834000854154.
(ii) E-mail dated 30.05.2025, from Team-Compliance
Moneylicious Securities Private Limited, stating about freezing
Demat Account no-1208340000854154 for both debit and credit
with the information that the client does not have any ledger
balance or securities in his account.
(iii) Copy of Letter No. 1958 / Talcher P.S., Angul, Dated
31.05.2025 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, FINVASIA
CENTRE, D 179, Phase 8 B (Sector 74), Mohali, Punjab 160055
requesting for Freezing Demat Account No. 1208430001054196.
(iv) Copy of E-mail dated 03.06.2025 from one Yogesh
Singh of Firvasia which is incomplete but encloses a form
containing details of the account.
(v) Copy of Letter No. 1961/Talcher P.S., Angul, Dated
31.05.2025 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, FYERS
Securities Private Limited, 901 and 902, 9th Floor, A Wing,
Brigade Magnum, Amruthahalli, Kodigehalli Gate, Hebbal,
Bangalore - 560092 requesting for Freezing Demat Account No-
1208940001718168.
(vi) Copy of E-mail dated 03.06.2025, from Fyers, informing
about freezing Demat Account No. 1208940001718168 and
attaching holding and transaction statement in proof.
(vii) Copy of Letter No. 1964/Talcher P.S., Angul, dated
31.05.2025 addressed to the Head of Compliance, Zerodha Broking
Limited's, #153/154, 4th Cross, Dollars Colony, Opposite Clarence
School, J.P. Nagar 4th Phase, Bangalore - 560078 requesting for
Freezing Demat Account No-1208160001299976.
(viii) Copy of E-mail dated 03.06.2025 from Zerodha regarding
freezing of Demat Account No.-1208160001299976
(ix) Copy of Letter dated 06.06.2025 of the Superintendent of
Police, Angul asking the IIC Angul, to submit an explanation for
not complying with the order dated 08.05.2025 of the High Court to
freeze the demat accounts.
17. No efforts were made to freeze the demat accounts during
investigation or even after order dated 08.05.2025 was passed by
this Court. On 15.05.2025, this Court directed the S.P. Angul to
take steps as deemed fit for non compliance of this Courts order and
thereafter steps have been taken for freezing the demat accounts.
But it appears that by the time the barn door was locked, the horses
had left. One email states that there is no balance in the account.
The status of the other accounts are not available.
18. It appears that request was made to freeze the demat
accounts Nos. (i)1208160001299976 (ii) 1208400001054196 (iii)
120834000854154 and (iv) 1208940001718168, after order was
passed by this Court on 08.05.2025. But one account, namely
120834000854154 has no funds and no information regarding funds
in the other three accounts have been provided. In other words the
horses had left the stable by the time the account were frozen.
19. It is stated at the bar that while opposite party No. 6
Tapaswini Mohapatra had been granted bail by this Court in
BLAPL No. 11875 of 2024 on 05.12.2024. Application filed by the
petitioner in the Supreme Court, for cancellation of her bail has
been rejected on 05.05.2025. This Court has allowed the prayer for
bail of opposite party No.5 Akhil Prasad Mishra on 13.05.2025 in
BLAPL No.234 of 2025.
CASE DIARY
20. Pursuant to the direction on 08.05.2025 to submit the case
diary, the learned State Counsel submitted it on 15.05.2025. The
forwarding letter with the case diary is extracted below:-
"DR No-119/Talcher PS, Dt. 12.01.2025.
To
The Advocate General, Odisha, Cuttack,
Ref: BLAPL Case No-234/2025 filed by Akhila Prasad Mishra (43), S/o-
Krushna Chandra Mishra, Vill-Deogaon, PS-Gondia, Dist-Dhenkanal &
Other Vrs. State of Odisha.
Sub: Submission of up to date carbon copy of CDs along with other
connected papers & C/A in Talcher PS Case No-641 dt.06.08.2024 U/S-
408/506/34 IPC turned to U/s 408/506 IPC/66 (C)/66 (D) IT Act.
Sir,
With reference to the case and subject cited above, I have the
honour this is to submit that up to date carbon copy CDs along with other
connected papers for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.
XVII
with Spot Map
Cr.P.C.
Memo
Total 48 sheets
Verified the C/A of accused person Akhila Prasad Mishra
(43), S/o-Krushna Chandra Mishra, Vill-Deogaon, PS-Gondia, Dist-
Dhenkanal from the available PS records as well as CCTNS data base
found nothing adverse against him Except this case.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
IIC, Talcher P.S.
21. The case diary contains entries upto 13th January 2025.On
that day the diary was closed for further investigation, but what
investigation was carried out after that date is not apparent from the
case diary provided by the learned State Counsel.
22. From this it appears that although preliminary
chargesheet had been submitted on 06.08.2024 and the further
investigation had been kept open, no investigation has been done
after January 2025 or the IIC Talcher and the learned State Counsel
thought that it is not necessary to submit the upto date case diary for
perusal of the Court to the court. This casual attitude is not
appreciated.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
22.1 In the case of K.V. Rajendran (supra), the Supreme Court
has held as
"6. The issue involved herein, is no more res integra.
This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under
what circumstances the investigation can be transferred
from the State investigating agency to any other
independent investigating agency like CBI. It has been
held that the power of transferring such investigation
must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court
finds it necessary in order to do justice between the
parties and to instil confidence in the public mind, or
where investigation by the State police lacks credibility
and it is necessary for having "a fair, honest and
complete investigation", and particularly, when it is
imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial
working of the State agencies. Where the investigation
has already been completed and charge sheet has been
filed, ordinarily superior courts should not reopen the
investigation and it should be left open to the court,
where the charge sheet has been filed, to proceed with
the matter in accordance with law. Under no
circumstances, should the court make any expression of
its opinion on merit relating to any accusation against
any individual. (Vide: Gudalure M.J. Cherian & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors., (1992) 1 SCC 397; R.S. Sodhi v.
State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 38; Punjab and
Haryana Bar Association, Chandigarh through its
Secretary v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1023;
Vineet Narain & Ors., v. Union of India & Anr., AIR
1996 SC 3386; Union of India & Ors. v Sushil Kumar
Modi & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 314; Disha v. State of
Gujarat & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 3168; Rajender Singh
Pathania & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., (2011)
13 SCC 329; and State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar & Ors. etc., AIR 2012 SC 364)."
13. The High Court has further taken note of the earlier
judgment of this Court dated 2.9.2008 wherein this Court
had given liberty to the appellant to move a fresh
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if it is so required
in view of the "subsequent events having been taken
place". The relevant part of the order of this Court reads
as under:
"We make it clear once again that if a fresh
criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code is
filed by the respondent for transferring the
investigation from State Police authorities to CBI
after bringing certain subsequent events that had
taken place after the disposal of the original
criminal petition if there be any, it would be open
for the High Court to entertain such application if it
is warranted and decide the same in accordance
with law for which we express no opinion on merit."
14. In sum and substance, firstly, the facts and
circumstances of the instant case do not present special
features warranting transfer of investigation to CBI, and
that too, at such a belated stage where the final report
under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted
before the competent criminal court. The allegations are
only against the then RDO who might have been
transferred to various districts during these past 15
years. Similarly various other police officials might have
investigated the case and it is difficult to assume that
every police official was under his influence and all of
them acted with malafide intention. In view of the earlier
order of this Court dated 2.9.2008, no subsequent
development has been brought to the notice of the court
which could warrant interference by superior courts and
transfer the investigation to CBI."
22.2 In the case of Bharati Tamang (supra), the Supreme
Court has held
"37. From the various decisions relied upon by the
petitioner counsel as well as by respondents
counsel, the following principles can be culled out.
a) The test of admissibility of evidence lies in its
relevancy.
b) Unless there is an express or implied constitutional
prohibition or other law, evidence placed as a result of
even an illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut
out.
c) If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible
or can be perceived by lifting the veil which try to hide
the realities or covering the obvious deficiency, Courts
have to deal with the same with an iron hand
appropriately within the framework of law.
d) It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the Court
to ensure that full and material facts are brought on
record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice.
e) In order to ensure that the criminal prosecution is
carried on without any deficiency, in appropriate cases
this Court can even constitute Special Investigation Team
and also give appropriate directions to the Central and
State Governments and other authorities to give all
required assistance to such specially constituted
investigating team in order to book the real culprits and
for effective conduct of the prosecution
f) While entrusting the criminal prosecution with other
instrumentalities of State or by constituting a Special
Investigation Team, the High Court or this Court can
also monitor such investigation in order to ensure
proper conduct of the prosecution.
g) In appropriate cases even if the chargesheet is filed it
is open for this Court or even for the High Court to direct
investigation of the case to be handed over to CBI or to
any other independent agency in order to do complete
justice.
h) In exceptional circumstances the Court in order to
prevent miscarriage of criminal justice and if considers
necessary may direct for investigation de novo."
22.3 In the case of Renuka Kulkarni (supra), the Delhi High
Court after referring to a number of decisions of the supreme Court
has held as follows:-
"8. Applying the parameters laid down by the Apex
Court, the investigation is transferred only when the
Court finds that a fair, honest and complete investigation
is not being carried out. Transfer of investigation to
another agency is only done in rare and exceptional
cases such as cases where high officials of State
authorities are involved. Accusations against an
investigating officer alone is not sufficient to transfer
investigation unless there is sufficient material to show
that the investigating officer is mixed up with the
accused. Bald allegations are not sufficient for transfer
of investigation. In fact, transfer of investigation from the
investigating agency hits at the morale of the Police
which must be avoided at all costs. In the absence of any
material placed before this Court as to why the
investigating agency has been lax and just because
investigating agency is not acting under the dictates of
the Complainants or the Complainants are not satisfied
alone cannot be the factor for transfer of investigation."
22.4 In the case of State of West Bengal vs. the Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 2 SCR 979, the Supreme
Court in held that direction of the High Court to the CBI to
investigate offence committed within jurisdiction of State of West
Bengal does not violate federal structure of the Constitution. The
Supreme Court has held as follows : -
45 .In the final analysis, our answer to the question
referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to
the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to
have been committed within the territory of a State
without the consent of that State will neither impinge
upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate
the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in
law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens,
this Court and the High Courts have not only the power
and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the
fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general
and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular,
zealously and vigilantly.
46. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to
emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles
32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order,
the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed
limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional
powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said
Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as
the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct
investigation in a case is concerned, although no
inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether
or not such power should be exercised but time and
again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to
be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a
party has levelled some allegations against the local
police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised
sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where
it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil
confidence in investigations or where the incident may
have national and international ramifications or where
such an order may be necessary for doing complete
justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise
the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases
and with limited resources, may find it difficult to
properly investigate even serious cases and in the
process lose its credibility and purpose with
unsatisfactory investigations."
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
23. "Something is rotten in Denmark" said Marcellus in the
play "Hamlet" written by Shakespeare. This reflects the nature of
investigation in the present case.
24. The Opposite party No.5 was arrested on 08.08.2024.
Letter was issued to different Banks on for freezing the accounts of
the accused persons. his accounts on 17.08.2024 and 31.08.2024.
25. Preliminary chargesheet was submitted on 06.08.2024
against the opposite parties No.5 for commission of offences under
Sections 408, 506 of IPC read with Sections 66(C)(D) of I.T. Act,
keeping investigation open under Section 193(9) of the BNSS. But
what investigation was conducted after 13th January 2025 is not
apparent from the case diary.
26. The IIC has submitted in his report and it is also apparent
from a perusal of the case diary that when the I.O., the S.I. of
Talcher Police Station interrogated the opposite party No 5 on
22.08.2024, he had stated that he had used four brokerage sites
connected to his demat Accounts. He had also stated that he had
used the misappropriated money to purchase gold, vehicles and
invested it online in the share market by option trading method. But
inspite of knowledge that the demat accounts were being operated
by the accused persons, the I.O. did not freeze the same
immediately, although he had taken steps for freezing the bank
accounts.
27. As no steps were taken to freeze the demat accounts even
after dated 08.05.2025 was passed by this Court. On 15.05.2025,
this Court directed the S.P. Angul to take steps as deemed fit for
non compliance of this Courts order and thereafter steps have been
taken for freezing the demat accounts which is almost three weeks
thereafter. One email in response to the letter to freeze demat
account No1208340000854154, states that there is no balance in the
account. The status of the other accounts are not available.
28. There is also no entry in the case diary nor any mention in
the report that any vehicle or gold belonging to the accused persons
have been seized during investigation.
29. The apprehension of the petitioner that the officers of
Talcher Police Station (local police) lack the requisite expertise to
effectively investigate a case of this nature and involving such a
large sum of money therefore appears to be justified.
30. The learned SDJM on 05.10.2024 had directed that the
I.O. to conduct a fair and proper investigation to ascertain the exact
quantum of misappropriation. It is apparent that this order has not
been complied in its true spirit in view of the above discussion.
31. The EOW is better equipped to investigate into such
cases. As it is the admitted case that the amount involved in this
case is exceeds rupees one crore and as per Circular No of the
EOW, cases involving transactions / misappropriations above Rs
One crore can be investigated into by the EOW, investigation can
be transferred to the EOW.
32. There is no question that such direction for transfer of
investigation will affect the moral of the local police, as the EOW is
part of the State Police.
33. There was no prayer in the application made before the
learned SDJM to hand over investigation to any other agency or to
seize the bank accounts or demat accounts of the accused persons.
34. The prayer seeking to arrest the two accused persons has
been rendered infructuous as they have been arrested in the
meanwhile and granted bail on 05.12.2024 & 13.05.2025
35. But in view of the fact that investigation has still not been
completed and the circumstances discussed above, I am satisfied
that it would be in the interest of justice, if investigation is handed
over to the EOW.
36. Nothing in this order shall be taken as final opinion as to
the complicity of the accused persons.
37. This Court does not think it proper to direct how the
investigation should be conducted, as that is the duty and lookout
of the EOW.
38. But this Court thinks it necessary to state that the EOW
should take steps to examine and record the statements of the
witnesses and ensure that the money which belonging to the
petitioner and which has been transferred from his account is
secured.
CONCLUSION
39. In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the
investigation should be handed over to the EOW.
40. The case diary and other relevant records be handed over
to the S.P. EOW, within a period of ten days for assigning the
investigation to a Competent Officer.
41. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
...........................
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 19th of June, 2025.
Sukanta
Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 20-Jun-2025 15:18:56
