THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No. 4491 of 2025

An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023.

--------------

Rasabihari Mohanty .. .... Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha,

represented by Superintendent of Police,

Vigilance Department, Cuttack

…… Opposite Party

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Mr. S. R. Tripathy, Advocate

For Opp. Party : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, A.S.C.

(Vigilance Department)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM:

JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

HON’BLE MISS

JUDGMENT

14.11.2025

Savitri Ratho, J. Mr. S.R. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that copy of the petition has been served on the learned

Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet and criminal proceeding in TR Case No.56 of 2015

which arises out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.56 of 2014 against the petitioner. Charge-sheet has been filed for commission of offences punishable under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the ‘P.C. Act’).

3. On 01.12.2014, the First Information Report (in short ‘FIR’) has been registered by the informant-Minati Panda against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. After obtaining sanction on completion of investigation, charge-sheet dated 31.10.2015 has been submitted against the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Thereafter charge has been framed against the petitioner on 25.02.2019 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. One Minati Panda lodged FIR stating that she had applied for the death certificate of her deceased father in the office of the Medical Officer, UGPHC, Patkura and had deposited the required fee. When she requested the petitioner, who was working as VS Clerk at Patkura U.G. PHC, to issue the certificate, he demanded a sum of ₹1500/- for issuing the death certificate. He later reduced his amount to ₹1000/-. Pursuant to the complaint of the informant, FIR was registered and a team was formed by the Vigilance Directorate and trap was laid, pursuant to which, the money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

SUBMISSIONS

5. Mr. S.R. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false allegations have been made against the petitioner and a case registered against him in order to achieve target of the vigilance and the informant has lodged a number of cases against different persons and although he has applied under the RTI Act for such information, the same has not been provided to him. He further submits that the statements of five witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., who form part of the trap-laying team, reveals that all of them claimed that they had been selected as overhearing witnesses to accompany the informant which is not acceptable and proof of the fact that false case has been created against the petitioner. He also relies on the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C of one such overhearing witness-Ghanashyam Behera, who stated that no demand for money was made and in fact, the informant gave two notes of ₹500/- along with betel and the petitioner protested stating why she has given the same. He finally submits that the proceeding should be quashed as even though charge sheet has been submitted on 31.10.2015, the charge has been framed only after four years i.e. on 25.10.2019 and till date only three out of 12 witnesses have been examin