Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.5335 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Mrs. Anita Kar @ Nita Dash … Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Srikanta Samal, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA Mrs. Padmaja Pattnaik, Adv. (for O.P.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING: -30.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT: - 15.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner has instituted the present CRLMC under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, inter alia, seeking quashing of the FIR vide Bargaon P.S. Case No.302 dated 03.11.2025 registered under Sections 281, 125(a), and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with all criminal Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 2 proceedings emanating therefrom, on the grounds that they are illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to State authorities mandating a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS in cases of road accidents or alleged negligence where the nature of the offence is doubtful, to prevent unnecessary harassment of innocent individuals. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 05.04.2025 at about 3:30 p.m., the Petitioner being a practising advocate along with her associate Ms. Sushma Tanty (hereinafter referred to as the “Informant”), was travelling from Rourkela to Sundargarh in a car bearing Registration No. OD- 14-W-1045, which was duly insured and being driven by the Petitioner herself. (ii) Upon reaching near Deokaranpur School, within the jurisdiction of Bargaon Police Station, the said vehicle, due to the presence of a sharp blind curve and the accident-prone nature of the stretch, inadvertently veered off the main road and entered an adjoining field. As a result of the said incident, both the Petitioner and the Informant sustained injuries, and the vehicle suffered substantial damage. (iii) The F.I.R. came to be lodged on 03.11.2025, i.e., almost seven months after the incident. The Petitioner seeks quashment of the criminal proceedings being frivolous. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 3 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The F.I.R. was lodged after an inordinate delay on 03.11.2025, i.e. almost seven months after the incident. (ii) On a bare perusal of the FIR does not disclose any allegation that the Petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly, negligently, or in a manner so as to endanger human life or personal safety, which are essential ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 281 and 125 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”). (iii) Mere occurrence of a road accident, without any element of criminal rashness or gross negligence, does not constitute a cognizable offence under the BNSS. (iv) Section 173(1) of the BNSS, registration of an FIR is justified only when the information received discloses commission of a cognizable offence. In the present case, the FIR itself does not disclose the basic ingredients of any cognizable offence; therefore, its registration is mechanical, illegal, and without jurisdiction. (v) Section 173(3) of the BNSS provides that, in offences punishable with imprisonment between three and seven years, the Officer- in-Charge may conduct a preliminary enquiry with prior approval of a Superior Officer not below the rank of Deputy Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 4 Superintendent of Police to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists. Had such an enquiry been conducted in the present case, it would have revealed that no prima facie material exists to constitute any cognizable offence against the Petitioner. (vi) Both the Petitioner and the informant are practicing advocates, and the journey was undertaken in connection with professional commitments before Courts in Sundargarh District. (vii) The Petitioner is an experienced driver, holding a valid driving licence for several years and have regularly travelled to various Courts in Sundargarh District along with the informant since 2020. (viii) Continuation of criminal proceedings on the basis of such an FIR would amount to abuse of the process of law and would seriously prejudice my reputation and professional standing as a prominent female practicing advocate. (ix) Allowing FIRs of this nature to continue would open the floodgates to frivolous criminal proceedings, where every accidental incident could be converted into a criminal case, thereby defeating the safeguards contemplated under the BNSS, 2023. (x) There exists no material to justify criminal prosecution in a case involving a mere accident where neither mens rea nor criminal negligence can be attributed to the Petitioner. (xi) The statements recorded by the police, if any, under Section 180 of the BNSS during the course of investigation do not constitute Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 5 substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis of criminal prosecution. Furthermore, there exists a possibility that, after a considerable lapse of time, the police may record statements containing afterthoughts to strengthen or develop the case. Permitting the investigation to proceed after such an inordinate delay would therefore amount to an abuse of the process of law. (xii) He placed reliance in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat & Anr.1, wherein the Supreme Court held that Section 173(3) of the BNSS introduces a significant departure from Section 154 CrPC by permitting a preliminary enquiry even in cognizable offences punishable between three and seven years, in order to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists before proceeding further. If after such enquiry the officer finds that no prima facie case is made out, he must inform the informant and refrain from proceeding further. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below: “42. Following is the summary of our conclusions: i. Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS makes a significant departure from Section 154 of CrPC. It provides that when information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence which is made punishable for 3 years or more but less than 7 years is received by an officer-incharge of a police station, with the prior permission of a superior officer as mentioned therein, the police officer is empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether 1 Criminal Appeal No.1545 of 2025 decided on 28th March, 2025 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 6 there exists a prima fade case for proceeding in the matter. However, under Section 154 of the CrPC, as held in the case of Lalita Kumari, only a limited preliminary inquiry is permissible to ascertain whether the information received discloses a cognizable offence. Moreover, a preliminary inquiry can be made under the CrPC only if the information does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry. Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS is an exception to sub-Section (1) of Section 173. In the category of cases covered by sub-Section (3), a police officer is empowered to make a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out for proceeding in the matter even if the information received discloses commission of any cognizable offence. ii. Under sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS, after holding a preliminary inquiry, if the officer comes to a conclusion that a prima fade case exists to proceed, he should immediately register an FIR and proceed to investigate. But, if he is of the view that a prima fade case is not made out to proceed, he should immediately inform the first informant/complainant so that he can avail a remedy under sub-Section (4) of Section 173. iii. In case of the offence punishable under Section 196 of the BNS to decide whether the words, either spoken or written or by sign or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, lead to the consequences provided in the Section, the police officer to whom information is furnished will have to Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 7 read or hear the words written or spoken, and by taking the same as correct, decide whether an offence under Section 196 is made out. Reading of written words, or hearing spoken words will be necessary to determine whether the contents make out a case of the commission of a cognizable offence. The same is the case with offences punishable under Sections 197, 299 and 302 of BNS. Therefore, to ascertain whether the information received by an officer-in-charge of the police station makes out a cognizable offence, the officer must consider the meaning of the spoken or written words. This act on the part of the police officer will not amount to making a preliminary inquiry which is not permissible under sub-Section (1) of Section 173. iv. The police officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals. The philosophy of the Constitution and its ideals can be found in the preamble itself. The preamble lays down that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure sill its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Therefore, liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our Constitution. Article 19(l)(a) confers a fundamental right on all citizens to freedom of speech and expression. The police machinery is a part of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Moreover, the police officers being citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution. They are bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech and expression conferred on all citizens. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 8 v. Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution carves out an exception to the fundamental right guaranteed under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19. If there is a law covered by clause (2), its operation remains unaffected by sub-clause (a) of clause (1). We must remember that laws covered by the clause (2) are protected by way of an exception provided they impose a reasonable restriction. Therefore, when an allegation is of the commission of an offence covered by the law referred to in clause (2) of Article 19, if sub-Section (3) of Section 173 is applicable, it is always appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. This will ensure that the fundamental rights guaranteed under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19 remain protected. Therefore, in such cases, the higher police officer referred to in sub- Section (3) of Section 173 must normally grant permission to the police officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry. vi. When an offence punishable under Section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position. vii. There is no absolute rule that when the investigation is at a nascent stage, the High Court cannot exercise Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 9 its jurisdiction to quash an offence by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the CrPC equivalent to Section 528 of the BNSS. When the High Court, in the given case, finds that no offence was made out on the face of it, to prevent abuse of the process of law, it can always interfere even though the investigation is at the nascent stage. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the nature of the offence. There is no such blanket rule putting an embargo on the powers of the High Court to quash FIR only on the ground that the investigation was at a nascent stage. viii. Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or group of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilised society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view. Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature including poetry, dramas, films, stage shows including stand-up comedy, satire and art, make the lives of human beings more meaningful. The Courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes, we, the Judges, may not like spoken or written words. But, still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental right Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 10 under Article 19 (l)(a). We Judges are under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and respect its ideals. If the police or executive fail to honour and protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (l)(a) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Courts to step in and protect the fundamental rights. There is no other institution which can uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens. ix. 75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem or for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as, stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities. Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate expressions of view in the public domain which is so fundamental to a free society.” (xiii) He also placed reliance in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, wherein the Supreme Court held that the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations in the FIR do not disclose commission of any offence or where the proceedings amount to abuse of the process of law, even if the investigation is at a nascent stage. (xiv) He further placed reliance in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors.3, wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows: “111. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 2 (1992 AIR 604) 3 Writ Petition (Criminal ) No.68 of 2008 decided on 12th November, 2013. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 11 (i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. (Emphasis supplied) (iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. (iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. (v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. (vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 12 (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactory explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.” (xv) He also placed reliance in the case of the State of Delhi v. Mamta Seghal & Anr.4, wherein the High Court held as follows: “19. In so far as the Car being driven by the Respondent is not disputed, but the testimony of the Complainant has not been able to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Car by the Respondent. It has been rightly observed by the learned M.M. that merely because an accident took place, is not ipso facto a ground to attribute negligence to the Respondent in the absence of any such evidence.” 4 CRLA No.534 of 2025 decided on 28th June, 2025 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 13 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2: 4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) On 05.04.2025 at about 3:30 PM, the Petitioner along with the Opposite Party No.2 (informant) was proceeding from Sundargarh to Rourkela in a car bearing Registration No. OD- 14-W-1045 and while they reached near Deokaranpur School under Bargaon Police Station, the said vehicle met with a serious accident. (ii) At the time of the accident, the Petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and due to such reckless driving, the accident occurred causing severe injuries to the informant, who was seated in the front passenger seat. (iii) As a result of the accident, the Opposite Party No.2 sustained grievous injuries, including fracture of the left thigh and multiple injuries on hands, legs and face due to broken glass pieces penetrating into her body. (iv) Immediately after the accident, the injured-informant was shifted to Rogi Kalyan Samiti, District Headquarters Hospital, Sundargarh with the assistance of local persons and thereafter referred to Jaiprakash Hospital and Research Centre, Rourkela, where she underwent surgery and continued medical treatment. (v) Due to the serious condition of the informant and continuous hospitalization, including surgical procedures and follow-up Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 14 treatment, she was not in a position to lodge the FIR immediately, and such delay is bona fide and sufficiently explained. (vi) Taking undue advantage of the critical condition of the informant, the Petitioner managed to misrepresent the cause of injury in hospital records by falsely stating that the informant sustained injuries due to a self-fall from a scooty, which is wholly incorrect and misleading. (vii) The contention of the Petitioner that the accident does not constitute a cognizable offence is legally untenable, as the acts of the Petitioner clearly attract the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Section 281 relating to rash and negligent driving and Section 125(a) and 125(b) relating to acts endangering life or personal safety of others, which are cognizable offences. (viii) The materials placed on record clearly establish that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Petitioner, resulting in grievous injuries to the informant and therefore the present case discloses commission of cognizable offences and warrants proper investigation and prosecution in accordance with law. (ix) She placed reliance in the case of Muskan v. Isliaan Khan (Sataniya) & Ors.5, wherein the Supreme Court has held that inherent powers must be exercised sparingly and only in 5 (2026) 101 OCR (SC) 116 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 15 exceptional circumstances, particularly where the allegations are absurd or fall within the categories enumerated in the landmark judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. (x) It is further settled that minor inconsistencies, delay in lodging the F.I.R., or allegations of counterblast do not justify quashing of proceedings, where the F.I.R. prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences. In such cases, investigation should not be stifled at the threshold. (xi) Further, as held by the Supreme Court in Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,6 while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now corresponding provisions under BNSS), must confine itself to examining whether the allegations in the F.I.R. disclose commission of a cognizable offence. If so, the Court should permit the investigating agency to proceed with investigation and should not interfere prematurely. (xii) Therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled legal position, she submits that the present petition filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs. (xiii) It is further prayed that, considering the grievous injuries sustained and the prolonged trauma and mental distress suffered by Opposite Party No.2, this Court may be pleased to grant appropriate compensation, to be paid by the Petitioner, in the interest of justice. 6 (2021) 19 SCC 401 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 16 IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and has carefully perused the materials available on record. 6. The foundational question that arises for consideration is whether the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence so as to justify continuation of criminal investigation against the Petitioner. It is now well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS is intended to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Though such power is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, the Court cannot remain a silent spectator where the allegations, even if admitted in full, fail to satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. 7. Upon a careful reading of the F.I.R. and the surrounding circumstances, this Court finds that the gravamen of the accusation rests on the allegation that the vehicle driven by the Petitioner met with an accident resulting in injuries to the informant. However, criminal liability for offences relating to rash or negligent driving cannot be inferred merely because an accident has occurred. In criminal jurisprudence, negligence sufficient to attract penal consequences must be of such degree as to disclose recklessness, gross disregard for human safety, or conduct imminently Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 17 dangerous to life. Every error of judgment, every unfortunate mishap, or every accident does not ipso facto constitute a criminal offence. The distinction between a mere accident and criminal rashness is not one of semantics, but of substance. Criminal law intervenes not to punish human fallibility, but culpable disregard for consequences. 8. In the present case, the allegations contained in the F.I.R. are conspicuously devoid of any specific assertion describing the manner in which the Petitioner allegedly drove the vehicle rashly or negligently. There is no allegation regarding excessive speed, dangerous overtaking, intoxication, violation of traffic norms, deliberate disregard of road conditions, or any overt act indicative of culpable negligence. On the contrary, the materials on record indicate that the accident occurred near a blind curve and accident- prone stretch where the vehicle allegedly lost control and entered an adjoining field. Such circumstances, by themselves, cannot automatically give rise to a presumption of criminality. The law does not permit conversion of every unfortunate road accident into a criminal prosecution merely because bodily injury has ensued. 9. This Court also finds considerable force in the contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner regarding the extraordinary and unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. The alleged incident occurred on 05.04.2025 whereas the F.I.R. came to be lodged only on 03.11.2025, nearly seven months thereafter. Though the informant has attempted to explain such delay on the ground of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 18 medical treatment and prolonged hospitalization, the delay nevertheless assumes significance in the peculiar facts of the present case, particularly when the prosecution seeks to attribute criminal negligence after a substantial lapse of time. Delay in criminal law is not always fatal; yet where allegations arise after considerable passage of time without contemporaneous accusation, the possibility of embellishment, afterthought, or reconstructed narration cannot be altogether ruled out. The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari has itself recognized that cases involving abnormal delay in initiation of prosecution may warrant a preliminary enquiry before registration of the F.I.R. 10. The introduction of Section 173(3) of the BNSS marks a significant legislative shift by enabling a preliminary enquiry in specified categories of cognizable offences punishable between three and seven years, for the purpose of ascertaining whether a prima facie case exists before the coercive machinery of criminal law is set in motion. The legislative intent underlying such provision is to ensure that criminal prosecution is not mechanically initiated in cases where foundational facts themselves are doubtful or where the allegations require threshold verification. The safeguard is rooted in the broader constitutional principle that criminal law should not become an instrument of harassment. In the present case, considering the admitted delay, the absence of specific allegations constituting criminal rashness, and the nature of the occurrence itself, a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 19 would have been both desirable and consistent with the legislative object underlying the provision. 11. This Court is equally conscious of the settled principle that at the stage of investigation the Court ordinarily ought not to embark upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. However, the embargo against interference at the nascent stage cannot be elevated into an absolute proposition disabling the constitutional courts from exercising jurisdiction where continuation of criminal proceedings itself amounts to abuse of process. The Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal and subsequent decisions has consistently held that where the allegations in the F.I.R., even if taken at their highest, fail to disclose the commission of any offence, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. 12. The present case appears to fundamentally arise out of an unfortunate motor accident in which both occupants of the vehicle sustained injuries. The materials presently available do not prima facie disclose the degree of mens rea, recklessness, or gross negligence necessary to attract criminal prosecution under Sections 281 and 125 of the BNS. Permitting investigation to continue in absence of foundational allegations constituting the offence would amount to allowing criminal law to travel beyond its legitimate bounds and would unnecessarily subject the Petitioner to the rigours of criminal prosecution despite absence of basic jurisdictional facts. Criminal process cannot be permitted to Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 20 operate as a punitive mechanism merely because an accident has occurred V. CONCLUSION: 13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the present case falls within the well-recognized categories warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction, particularly where the allegations in the F.I.R., even if accepted in entirety, fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, the impugned F.I.R. vide Bargaon P.S. Case No.302 dated 03.11.2025 and all consequential criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands disposed of being allowed. 14. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 15th May, , 2026/