[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Nikhil Padhi & Anr vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 11 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.106 of 2026
Nikhil Padhi & Anr. ..... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Jagabandhu Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena,
AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 11.02.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid
arrangement.
2. The Petitioners have filed the present CRLMC by
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
seeking quashment of the entire criminal proceeding
arising out of Bargarh P.S. Case No.447 dated 23.07.2024,
which has culminated in C.T. (Spl.) Case No.66 of 2024
and is presently pending before the learned Sessions
Judge, Bargarh, as reflected in Annexure-1.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the
substratum of the prosecution case, insofar as the present
Petitioners are concerned, rests exclusively upon the
alleged confessional statement of the co-accused, namely,
Manashi Kuswaha, who was apprehended while
Reason: Authentication Page 1 of 7.
Location: OHC
Date: 19-Feb-2026 18:33:13
allegedly transporting contraband cough syrup. It is
contended that the implication of the Petitioners is not
founded on any independent or legally admissible
material, but solely upon such disclosure, which in law
carries a limited and circumscribed evidentiary value.
4. It is further submitted that even if the allegations
contained in the charge sheet are accepted to be true, they
fail to disclose the essential ingredients constituting the
offences under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act or
under Sections 277, 276, 109, 121(2), 121(1), 132 and 3(5)
of the BNS, 2023. There is no averment of conscious
possession, participation in any conspiracy, abetment, or
any overt act attributable to the Petitioners that would
satisfy the foundational requirements of the aforesaid
penal provisions.
5. Learned counsel emphasizes that no contraband
has been recovered from the possession of the Petitioners
or at their instance during investigation, nor is there any
material demonstrating their knowledge, control, or
dominion over the alleged seized articles. In prosecutions
under the NDPS Act, the element of conscious possession
and a demonstrable nexus with the contraband constitute
the sine qua non for sustaining a charge. In the absence of
such foundational facts, the statutory presumptions
cannot be invoked.
Reason: Authentication Page 2 of 7.
Location: OHC
Date: 19-Feb-2026 18:33:13
6. It is thus contended that the prosecution, as against
the Petitioners, is bereft of prima facie material and
continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to
a fishing and roving enquiry, resulting in manifest
injustice. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is submitted, is precisely intended
to interdict such proceedings where the uncontroverted
allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence
and where allowing the prosecution to proceed would
constitute an abuse of the process of Court.
7. He further relies on the judgement in case of Karan
Talwar-cersus-State of Tamilnadu1. The relevant portion
of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow: -
"As noted hereinbefore, the sole material
available against the appellant is the confession
statement of the co-accused viz., accused No.1,
which undoubtedly cannot translate into
admissible evidence at the stage of trial and
against the appellant. When that be the position,
how can it be said that a prima facie case is made
out to make the appellant to stand the trial. There
can be no doubt with respect to the position that
standing the trial is an ordeal and, therefore, in
a case where there is no material at all which
could be translated into evidence at the trial
stage it would be a miscarriage of justice to make
the person concerned to stand the trial."
Digitally Signed 1 2024 INSC 1012
Reason: Authentication Page 3 of 7.
Location: OHC
Date: 19-Feb-2026 18:33:13
8. He further relies on the judgement in case of Hari
Charan Kurmi and Jodia Hajam-versus-State of Bihar2.
The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted
hereinbelow: -
"It is true that the confession made by
Ram Surat is a detailed statement and it
attributes to the two appellants a major part in
the commission of the offence. It is also true that
the said confession has been found to be
voluntary, and true so far as the part played by
Ram Surat himself is concerned, and so, it is not
unlikely that the confessional statement in
regard to the part played by the two appellants
may also be true; and in that sense, the reading
of the said confession may raise a serious
suspicion against the accused. But it is precisely
in such cases that the true legal approach must
be adopted and suspicion. however grave, must
not be allowed to take the place of proof. As we
have already indicated, it, has been a recognised
principle of the administration of criminal law in
this country for over half a century that the
confession of a co-accused person cannot be
treated as substantive evidence and can be
pressed into service only when the court is
inclined to' accept other evidence and feels the
necessity of seeking for an assurance in support
of its conclusion deducible, from the said
evidence. In criminal trials, there is no scope for
applying the principle of moral conviction or
grave suspicion. In criminal cases where the
other evidence adduced against an accused
person is wholly unsatisfactory and the
Digitally Signed 2 1964 AIR 1184
Reason: Authentication Page 4 of 7.
Location: OHC
Date: 19-Feb-2026 18:33:13
prosecution seeks to rely on the confession of a
co-accused person, the presumption of innocence
which is the basis of criminal jurisprudence
assists the accused person and compels the Court
to render the verdict that the charge is not proved
against him, and so, he is entitled to the benefit
of doubt. That is precisely what has happened in
these appeals."
9. Learned counsel appearing for the State
vehemently opposes the prayer advanced on behalf of the
Petitioners and submits that the materials collected
during the course of investigation, as reflected in the case
diary and charge sheet, prima facie disclose the
involvement of the Petitioners in the alleged offences. It
is contended that at this stage, this Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is
not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of
the evidentiary value of the materials on record or
embark upon a roving enquiry into disputed questions of
fact.
10. It is further urged that the scope of interference at
the threshold is extremely limited, and unless the
allegations are patently absurd, inherently improbable,
or fail to disclose the basic ingredients of the offences
alleged, the criminal proceeding ought not to be
interdicted. According to the State, the sufficiency or
reliability of evidence is a matter to be adjudicated during
Reason: Authentication Page 5 of 7.
Location: OHC
Date: 19-Feb-2026 18:33:13
trial, and premature quashment would amount to stifling
a legitimate prosecution.
11. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioners as
well as learned counsel for the State, and upon a careful
perusal of the materials available on record, this Court is
not persuaded to entertain, much less admit, the present
application seeking quashment of the criminal
proceeding arising out of Bargarh P.S. Case No.447 dated
23.07.2024, which has culminated in C.T. (Spl.) Case
No.66 of 2024 and is presently pending before the learned
Sessions Judge, Bargarh.
12. At this stage, the allegations contained in the First
Information Report and the materials collected during
investigation cannot be said to be so patently absurd,
inherently improbable, or devoid of the essential
ingredients of the alleged offences as to warrant exercise
of the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The power to
quash a criminal proceeding is to be exercised sparingly,
with circumspection, and only in cases where
continuation of the prosecution would amount to a
manifest abuse of the process of Court or where the ends
of justice demand such interference.
13. This Court is mindful that the appreciation of
evidence, evaluation of the probative worth of
Reason: Authentication Page 6 of 7.
Location: OHC
Date: 19-Feb-2026 18:33:13
statements, and determination of the culpability of the
accused are matters falling squarely within the domain of
the trial court. At the threshold stage, this Court cannot
embark upon a meticulous analysis of the evidentiary
material or adjudicate disputed questions of fact. In view
of the foregoing, the present application does not merit
admission.
14. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
Reason: Authentication Page 7 of 7.
