Soumendra Nandan Dasmohapatra vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) ... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8819 Ori

Orissa High Court

Soumendra Nandan Dasmohapatra vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) ... ... on 1 October, 2025

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              CRLMC No.4085 of 2025

            1.Soumendra Nandan Dasmohapatra
            2.Srijoy Nandan Dasmohapatra            ...          Petitioners
                                           Mr.Sailaza Nandan Das, Advocate
                                        -Versus-
            State of Odisha (Vigilance)             ...       Opposite Party

                                                      Mr. N. Maharana,
                                                      Standing Counsel
                                                     (Vigilance)
                                CORAM:
                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
                                   ORDER

Order No.                        01.10.2025
 01.        1.       Mr. Das, learned counsel submits that he has

filed consent memo. Registry is requested to trace and tag the same with the record and reflect the name of Mr. Das in the file as well as in the cause list.

2. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Maharana, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that without appreciating the contentions raised, inter alia, regarding inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Vigilance authorities to investigate in the light of the gazette notification at Annexure-9, prayer for discharge has been negated. Hence, the matter merits consideration by this Court.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 1947 regarding maintainability of the CRLMC.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department, Mr. Maharana submits that the contention as raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is no longer res integra and in fact it has been clarified by the Apex Court that such question can be urged at the time of trial. As such there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference.

5. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the matter merits consideration.

Accordingly, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance is called upon to respond to the cause, as urged.

6. Put up this matter on 10.11.2025

(V. Narasingh) Vacation Judge

Order No.

02. 1. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Maharana, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

2. This is an application for stay of further proceeding in T.R. Case No.33 of 2011 on the file of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar.

3. Considering the submissions made, it is directed that it shall be open for the Petitioners to move an application for adjournment before the learned Court in

seisin indicating that this Court is in seisin of the matter. If such an application is filed, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

4. I.A according stands disposed of.

(V. Narasingh) Vacation Judge

PKS

Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 01-Oct-2025 15:17:41