SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 584

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Bipin Kumar Nayak
For the Respondents: Amitav Pradhan, Gayatri Patra, Trilochan Panigrahi

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 284 and 337 - Criminal procedure - Quashing of criminal proceedings - The petitioner seeks to quash criminal proceeding pending against her related to the alleged negligent administration of saline to a patient, causing adverse reactions - The investigation resulted in a charge sheet, with the learned Trial Court taking cognizance - Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not negate criminal liability, as different standards of proof apply (Paras 5-7).

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers of High Court - The High Court's intervention in criminal proceedings is limited to exceptional circumstances to prevent the abuse of process - If allegations disclose a prima facie case, the trial must proceed without interference (Paras 6-8).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was alleged to have administered defective saline, leading to a patient’s severe reactions; she was exonerated in a departmental inquiry but faced ongoing criminal charges, impacting her pension (Paras 1-4).

Findings of Court:
The allegations disclosed a prima facie case requiring adjudication during trial; the Court found no grounds for quashing the proceedings and stated the process must continue (Paras 15-19).

Issues: Whether the petitioner’s continued prosecution amounts to an abuse of process considering her exoneration in departmental proceedings (Para 12).

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court affirmed that exoneration in a departmental inquiry does not equate to immunity from criminal prosecution and that prima facie allegations warranted further trial (Paras 13-14).

Result: Petition dismissed, allowing continuance of criminal proceedings.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top