IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.
Kanchanbala Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Another – Respondents
Crl. M.C. No. 4244 of 2024
Decided On : 13-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments for quashing the case. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's jurisdictional scope under section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. types of cases where the court may intervene. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. evaluation of allegations and trial necessity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. distinction between departmental and criminal proceedings. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. affirmation of ongoing criminal proceedings. (Para 15) |
| 8. conclusion of the court's ruling. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.
1. The petitioner in the present petition seeks to quash the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. Case No.2114 of 2013 corresponding to Kumbharapada P.S. Case No. 357 of 2013 registered under Sections 284 and 337 of the I.P.C.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
i. The petitioner and another have been implicated as accused in Kumbharapada P.S. Case No. 357 of 2013, registered under Sections 284 and 337 of the I.P.C., which ultimately gave rise to G.R. Case No. 2114 of 2013, now pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri.
ii. The prosecution case is that on 19.10.2013 at about 11:00 P.M., the informant (O.P. No. 2) went to the District Head Quarter Hospital, Puri for treatment as he was experiencing pain in his abdomen. He was admitted as an indoor patient and was administered two saline bottles. However, when the third saline was administered by the nurse, i.e., the present petitioner, after about 15–20 minutes, his body allegedly started vibrating and irritation was felt in his hands, feet and palms. He also could not see anything and his muscles became stiff. On examination, the doctor allegedly stated that the saline contained some white particles which caused the reaction. It is further alleged that the concerned nurse was found absent thereafter. The informant was then given oxygen and referred to another hospital.
iii. In the meantime, investigation has been completed and the I.O. has submitted charge sheet/final form against the petitioner and another for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 284, 337 and 34 of the I.P.C.
iv. For the alleged occurrence, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.10.2013 and was subsequently reinstated into service vide order dated 28.12.2013, pending finalization of the departmental proceeding.
v. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service from the post of Nursing Sister on 31.12.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation.
vi. Subsequently, in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the charges were not established and, as such, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against her. The period of suspension was also treated as duty.
vii. The informant had also filed a case bearing C.C. Case No. 329 of 2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puri, which was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution.
viii. It is further stated that although the petitioner was exonerated in the disciplinary proceeding and the case filed by the informant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puri was dismissed for non-prosecution, she has allegedly been deprived of receiving her pensionary benefits due to the pendency of the present criminal case, which has been pending since the year 2013.
ix. Being aggrieved by the continuance of the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 2114 of 2013 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
i. The petitioner contended that she is not involved in the alleged occurrence and has been falsely implicated, and that the allegations made in the F.I.R. do not make out a prima facie case ag
AI
Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not exempt a party from criminal prosecution; the High Court will not quash charges when a prima facie case exists.
Departmental exoneration does not automatically quash criminal charges, which must be proven independently in a trial.
Medical professionals can only be held criminally liable for negligence if gross negligence is established. The presence of a co-accused in a procedure does not automatically imply responsibility wit....
Exoneration in departmental proceedings on merits precludes subsequent criminal prosecution on identical allegations due to differing standards of proof.
The court held that the police had not conducted a preliminary inquiry before filing the complaint against the petitioner, as required by law, and that the alleged offense fell under the definition o....
Point of law : If allegations in the departmental inquiry could not be proved on merit and the person is held to be innocent, criminal prosecution on the said facts cannot be permitted to be continue....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for expert opinion before initiating criminal proceedings against doctors and the potential abuse of process of law in cases of ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.