Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.K.MOHAPATRA
Debadutta Mohapatra – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing for quashing fir. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. description of the bribery allegations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner's defense arguments. (Para 6) |
| 4. court's overview of the case. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. legal standards for quashing fir. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. court's decision on investigation integrity. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. conclusion and investigation continuance. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Mohapatra, J.
1. The abovenoted CRLMC No.1252 of 2025 has been filed with a prayer to quash the FIR No. RC2172024A0017, dated 07.12.2024, lodged on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption-II, New Delhi, pending before the Court of the Learned Special Judge, CBI-I, Bhubaneswar as R.C. No.17(A) of 2024, for commission of offences under sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) read with section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023.
Likewise, CRLMC No.347 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner-Company with a prayer to quash the summons dated 17.12.2024 & 24.12.2024 under Annexure-1 Series issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption-II, in R.C. No. 17(A) of 2024, which arises out of the FIR No. RC2172024A0017, dated 07.12.2024, wh
The court ruled that allegations in an FIR must disclose a prima facie case for investigation, and mere recovery of cash without evidence linking the accused to a bribery transaction does not suffice....
A FIR initiates criminal proceedings without needing specific role attribution; sufficient evidence during investigation upholds its validity, especially in corruption cases.
Point of Law : Dismissal of petition to Quash of FIR – Commission of cognizable offence and pendency of investigation – cannot be quashed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific and credible evidence to establish the commission of a cognizable offence, especially in cases involving allegations of....
The judgment established the principle that a second FIR for the same cause may not be permissible if the incidents could have been investigated in the first FIR, and that the abuse of power by the I....
The court upheld the legality of ongoing investigations into serious allegations of fraud and corruption, asserting the necessity for investigations when FIRs disclose cognizable offences.
The court established that prima facie evidence of a bribe demand is sufficient to justify an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that quashing an FIR should be an exception rat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
