Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2260 of 2025 Daitary Pradhan ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Biswajit Mohapatra -versus- State Of Odisha (Vigilance) ..... Opposite Party Mr. N. Moharana, Standing Counsel for Vigilance CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 17.07.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Moharana, learned Standing Counsel for Vigilance. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with 528 of BNSS the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Vigilance, Phulbani in G.R. Case No.09 of 2014(v). 4. By virtue of the impugned order dated 17.05.2025, the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Vigilance, Phulbani has rejected the application of the Petitioner for discharge Page 2 of 3. filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner who was working as Panchayat Executive Officer had no role in the alleged crime. He further contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. He further submitted that since there are no materials indicating the involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged crime, as such, the Petitioner moved an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge of the accused-Petitioner. However, such discharge application has been illegally and arbitrarily rejected by the learned trial Court and being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that although allegations have been made with regard to payment of the alleged amount of Rs.1,38,964/-. However, the Petitioner had no role in such payment. He further contended that the investigation of the case has not been done properly by the I.O. and that certain materials which are in favour of the Petitioner have not been taken note of during investigation, as a result of which, the Petitioner is seriously prejudiced. 6. In reply to the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance referred to the order dated 17.05.2025 under Annexure-3 to the application. He further contended that the learned trial Court has discussed the materials on record and that a prima facie case is well made out against the present Petitioner. He further submitted that in view of the settled position of law, the learned trial Court is required to examine existence of a prima facie case at the time of considering the discharge application of the Petitioner. Moreover, such scrutiny by the trial Court is to be confined to the materials connected in course Page 3 of 3. of investigation and that he is not supposed to examine any extraneous materials which are not there on record. In such view of the matter, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance contended that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality by rejecting the application of the Petitioner for discharge vide order dated 17.05.2025. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and the document annexed to the writ petition, further on a close scrutiny of order dated 17.05.2025, this Court found that the learned trial Court has clearly discussed with regard to the existence of a prima facie case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the discharge application of the Petitioner vide order dated 17.05.2025. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with order dated 17.05.2025. While disposing of the present application, this Court would like to observe that the learned trial Court shall make every endeavor to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. The Petitioner is directed to cooperate with the learned trial Court for an early commencement and conclusion of the trial. 8. With the aforesaid observations/direction, the CRLMC application stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout