Pravat Kumar Panda vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 8580 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pravat Kumar Panda vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 22 September, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             CRLMC No.2754 of 2024
            Pravat Kumar Panda           .....       Petitioner
                                                             Represented By Adv. -
                                                             Rajjeet Roy

                                          -versus-
            State Of Odisha                     .....               Opposite Party
                                                         Represented By Adv. - S S
                                                         Mohapatra,Mr. N
                                                         Maharana (for Vigilance)

                                   CORAM:
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                 MOHAPATRA

                                         ORDER

22.09.2025

Order No.

07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the accused-petitioner with a prayer to quash the entire vigilance proceeding pending against the Petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that although the vigilance case was lodged in the year 1993 and a vigilance case bearing VGR No.05 of 1993 was registered, however three decades have passed in the meantime and the trial has not yet been concluded. Being aggrieved by such prolonged trial and consequential harassment, the Petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. To support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Criminal Revision No.795 of 2014, disposed of vide judgment dated 27.02.2024.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department sought for some time to obtain instruction with regard to applicability of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the present case.

6. List this matter in the week commencing 27th October, 2025. In the meantime, a report be called for through the registry, from the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack, explaining the reason of delay as to whether the same is attributable to the accused or a prosecution.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi