Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4733 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). Das Pravas Kumar Bagla …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha (Vig) …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateik Parija, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-13.05.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.06.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking exercise of the extraordinary powers vested therein. The present petition has been instituted with a prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of Cuttack Vigilance Cell P.S. Case No. 06 dated 05.02.2016, corresponding to V.G.R. No. 09 of 2016, which are presently pending before the Court of the learned Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 2 Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. The Petitioner contends that the continuation of the said prosecution is legally unsustainable and amounts to an abuse of the process of law, thereby warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) As revealed from the records of the case, on 05.01.2016, the Vigilance officials attached to the Cuttack Vigilance Cell conducted simultaneous search operations at the residential premises of the Petitioner as well as his parental house on the suspicion that he had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the course of his service. (ii) Following the said search and preliminary enquiry, Cuttack Vigilance Cell P.S. Case No. 06 of 2016 was registered on 05.02.2016 against the Petitioner, who was then serving as a Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI), and his wife. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons were in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of the Petitioner to the extent of ₹1,74,74,110/-. Accordingly, the case was registered for commission of offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 3 (iii) During the course of investigation, the Vigilance authorities fixed the check period from 05.04.1999 to 05.01.2016 for the purpose of assessing the income, expenditure, and assets of the Petitioner. The principal allegation reflected in the F.I.R. is that, during the said period, the Petitioner had allegedly acquired and possessed substantial movable and immovable assets, either in his own name or purportedly in the names of his family members and other relatives. (iv) The assets under scrutiny included landed property situated at Shastri Nagar, a triple-storied residential building, allotment of a commercial flat, bank deposits, motor vehicles, household articles of considerable value, and other investments. Upon verification and valuation of the said assets, the investigating agency allegedly found that the assets and pecuniary resources attributable to the Petitioner were disproportionate to his known sources of income and were assessed to be in excess of his documented lawful earnings during the check period. (v) During the course of investigation, the Petitioner repeatedly furnished explanations along with supporting documents before the Investigating Agency in an effort to clarify the sources and ownership of the assets brought under scrutiny. It is stated that on 29.12.2023, the Petitioner submitted a detailed representation, accompanied by supporting documents and notarized affidavits, through registered post to the Superintendent of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 4 Police, Vigilance Cell Division, Cuttack, as well as to the Investigating Officer concerned. (vi) In the said representation, the Petitioner asserted that the assessment of disproportionate assets undertaken by the Vigilance authorities was fundamentally erroneous and inflated, contending that several of the properties and assets included in the computation exclusively belonged to his father-in-law and ancestral family estate and could not legally be attributed to him. (vii) The Petitioner further claimed that his independent business income and financial resources generated prior to his entry into government service had not been taken into consideration while determining his known sources of income, thereby resulting in a distorted and inaccurate calculation of the alleged disproportionate assets. (viii) As the investigation remained inconclusive for a considerable period, the Petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing CRLMC No. 2449 of 2024 seeking appropriate directions in the matter. The said application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2024, wherein the statement made on behalf of the State Vigilance Department was recorded to the effect that those assets which had neither been acquired by nor received any financial contribution from the Petitioner would be excluded from the computation of disproportionate assets. While disposing of the matter, this Court also directed the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 5 Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation with due expedition and in accordance with law. (ix) According to the Petitioner, notwithstanding the aforesaid direction of this Court, the investigation has continued without culmination. It is alleged that more than one year has elapsed since the issuance of the said direction, and over nine years have passed from the date of the initial search operation, yet neither has the investigation been brought to its logical conclusion nor has any final report or charge-sheet been submitted before the competent court. (x) Contending that the prolonged pendency of the investigation has caused serious prejudice and uncertainty, the Petitioner has instituted the present application seeking appropriate relief against the alleged inordinate delay in the completion of the investigation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present criminal appeal. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. The learned counsel for the Appellant respectfully and earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The Petitioner vehemently contends that the prolonged pendency of the investigation for nearly a decade constitutes a gross infringement of the fundamental right to a speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 6 submitted that the constitutional guarantee of a fair, just, and reasonable procedure is not confined merely to the stage of trial but extends equally to every stage of the criminal process, including investigation. According to the Petitioner, the indefinite continuation of a criminal probe without any finality subjects an accused person to prolonged uncertainty, mental anguish, social stigma, and professional prejudice, thereby striking at the very core of the protections guaranteed under Article 21. (ii) The Petitioner further contends that the computation of the alleged disproportionate assets, as reflected in the F.I.R. and the materials collected during investigation, is wholly erroneous, arbitrary, and unsupported by the factual record. It is submitted that a substantial portion of the alleged disproportionate assets has been wrongly attributed to the Petitioner without any credible material establishing his ownership, acquisition, or financial contribution thereto. (iii) Elaborating the said contention, learned counsel draws particular attention to Item No. 3 of the asset statement, namely a flat valued at ₹46,09,000/-, which has been included in the computation against the Petitioner. It is argued that the said flat was purchased exclusively by the Petitioner's father-in-law, Dr. Surendra Kumar Mohanty, from his own independent financial resources and through transactions routed from his personal bank accounts. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 7 (iv) According to the Petitioner, the corporate builder concerned has furnished written communications certifying that the consideration amount was paid by the father-in-law and not by the Petitioner. It is further submitted that notarized affidavits to the said effect have been placed before the Investigating Officer, wherein the ownership and source of funds relating to the property have been specifically disclosed. In such circumstances, learned counsel asserts that the inclusion of the said asset in the Petitioner's asset profile is factually unsustainable and has materially inflated the computation of the alleged disproportionate assets. (v) The Petitioner further submits that several other assets have likewise been erroneously and arbitrarily attributed to the Petitioner without any factual or legal basis. It is contended that the ancestral and parental properties situated in Bhadrak have been included in the asset statement despite the existence of materials demonstrating that such properties were acquired and possessed by the Petitioner's father from his independent sources of income. Similarly, the Ford Figo motor vehicle and the associated parking space have allegedly been linked to the Petitioner, notwithstanding documentary evidence indicating that the same were financed and owned by his nephew from his personal resources. (vi) It is further argued that the investigating agency has failed to take into account the Petitioner's legitimate sources of income, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 8 including earnings derived from agricultural activities and profits generated from his bus transport business prior to and during the relevant period. According to the Petitioner, had these lawful sources of income been correctly assessed and incorporated into the computation, the financial analysis would reveal that his aggregate income sufficiently accounted for the assets attributed to him. Learned counsel therefore submits that the allegation of possession of disproportionate assets is founded upon a fundamentally flawed methodology, and that a proper and objective calculation would demonstrate the absence of any disproportionate assets whatsoever, thereby eliminating the very substratum of the prosecution case. (vii) The Petitioner further submits that despite the specific observations and directions issued by this Court in its order dated 14.08.2024 passed in CRLMC No. 2449 of 2024, the Vigilance Department has failed to adhere to the parameters laid down therein. It is contended that although an assurance was given before this Court that assets which were neither acquired by nor financially contributed to the Petitioner would be excluded from consideration, the investigation has continued without any discernible progress and without finalizing the asset computation in accordance with the said undertaking. (viii) The Petitioner, the continued failure of the investigating agency to submit a final report, notwithstanding the lapse of considerable time after the order of this Court, reflects a lack of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 9 diligence and demonstrates that the investigation is being kept pending indefinitely to the detriment of the Petitioner. It is argued that such prolonged pendency has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner's service career, reputation, and prospects of advancement, as the shadow of an unresolved vigilance proceeding continues to operate against him. Learned counsel therefore contends that the unexplained and inordinate delay in concluding the investigation, coupled with the alleged non-compliance with the directions of this Court, renders the continuation of the proceedings oppressive, arbitrary, and an abuse of the process of law. On such premises, it is urged that this Court ought to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and bring the proceedings to an end by quashing or dropping the same in the interest of justice. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party earnestly made the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine. (i) The Opp. Party submits that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner pertain to offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which are grave in nature and have a direct bearing on public accountability and the integrity of public administration. It is contended that offences involving accumulation of assets disproportionate to known sources of income by a public servant constitute serious economic offences Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 10 and cannot be viewed through the same lens as ordinary criminal infractions. Such allegations strike at the very foundation of probity in public service and warrant a thorough and comprehensive investigation before any conclusion can be drawn. (ii) Learned counsel further submits that the search operation conducted by the Vigilance authorities led to the detection of substantial movable and immovable assets allegedly held by or attributable to the Petitioner and his family members. According to the prosecution, the assets discovered during the course of the search appeared, prima facie, to be grossly disproportionate to the Petitioner's known lawful sources of income as a public servant. It is therefore argued that the materials unearthed during the investigation disclosed sufficient grounds for continuation of the vigilance enquiry and that the seriousness of the allegations necessitates a meticulous examination of the financial transactions, sources of income, and ownership of the assets in question. Consequently, the Respondent-State contends that the proceedings cannot be interdicted merely on the ground of delay when the investigation concerns allegations of large- scale accumulation of disproportionate assets by a public servant. (iii) The Opp. Party further submits that the investigations into disproportionate assets cases are inherently complex, as public servants often camouflage assets through family members and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 11 associates. Consequently, extensive verification of financial and property records from multiple institutions and districts is necessary. It is further contended that the investigation is actively progressing and that the representations, calculations, affidavits, and other documents furnished by the Petitioner pursuant to the earlier order of this Court are presently under scrutiny and verification. Therefore, the delay in concluding the investigation is neither deliberate nor arbitrary but is attributable to the nature and complexity of the enquiry. (iv) The Opp. Party further contends that no rigid or inflexible time frame can be prescribed for investigations involving allegations of disproportionate assets and corruption, particularly where the enquiry necessitates verification of voluminous financial records and transactions spread across multiple sources. (v) It is submitted that the explanations and calculations relied upon by the Petitioner give rise to disputed questions of fact relating to the ownership of assets, sources of income, and financial accounting, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such matters, according to the State, require detailed examination of evidence and are within the exclusive domain of the competent court. On these grounds, it is urged that the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 12 IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 6. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the contours and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are no longer res integra and stand authoritatively settled by a catena of judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. The inherent power preserved under the aforesaid provision is extraordinary in nature and is intended to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional circumstances. Such jurisdiction is designed to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, to secure the ends of justice, and to ensure that the administration of criminal law is not employed for oblique or ulterior purposes. 8. In the present case, the Petitioner has assailed the continuation of the criminal proceedings arising out of Cuttack Vigilance Cell P.S. Case No. 06 of 2016 primarily on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the investigation has remained pending for an inordinately long period of nearly a decade, thereby subjecting the Petitioner to prolonged uncertainty and mental anguish, in alleged derogation of the constitutional guarantee of a fair and speedy investigation and trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, the Petitioner asserts that the investigating agency has failed to adhere to and faithfully implement the specific directions issued by the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 13 competent court during the course of investigation, rendering the continuation of the proceeding legally unsustainable. 9. According to the Petitioner, the extraordinary delay in bringing the investigation to its logical conclusion has not only prejudiced his rights but has also defeated the very object of criminal justice, which mandates prompt, fair, and expeditious proceedings. It is thus argued that the prolonged pendency of the matter, coupled with the alleged non-compliance of judicial directions, constitutes an abuse of the process of law warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS. 10. With regard to the plea of inordinate delay and the alleged violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is conscious of the well-settled principle that the right to a fair, expeditious, and speedy investigation and trial constitutes an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty. Nevertheless, it is equally well established that the mere passage of time, howsoever prolonged, does not ipso facto render a criminal proceeding liable to be quashed. The question whether delay has occasioned a constitutional infraction must be determined in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. 11. Similar interpretation was reiterated in the case of Niranjan Hermchandra Sashittal & Anr v. State of Maharashtra,1, while taking note of the ratio of the earlier judgments of the constitutional bench in 1 (2013) 4 SCC 642 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 14 respect of speedy trial in the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak2, wherein it had referred the has been held that: “…..a proponement was advanced that unless a time limit is fixed for the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, the right to speedy trial would be illusory. The Constitution Bench, after referring to the factual matrix and various submissions, opined that there is a constitutional guarantee of speedy trial emanating from Article 21 which is also reflected in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to state as follows:- 83. But then speedy trial or other expressions conveying the said concept - are necessarily relative in nature. One may ask speedy means, how speedy? How long a delay is too long? We do not think it is possible to lay down any time schedules for conclusion of criminal proceedings. The nature of offence, the number of accused, the number of witnesses, the workload in the particular court, means of communication and several other circumstances have to be kept in mind." After so stating, the Court gave certain examples relating to a murder trial where less number of witnesses are examined and certain trials which involve large number of witnesses. It also referred to certain offences which, by their very nature, e.g., conspiracy cases, cases of misappropriation, embezzlement, fraud, forgery, sedition, acquisition of disproportionate assets by public servants, cases of corruption against high public officials, take longer time for investigation and trial. The Court also took note of the workload in each court, district, regional and State-wise and the strikes by the members of the Bar which interfere with the work schedules. The Bench further proceeded to observe that in the very nature of things, it is difficult to draw a time limit beyond which a criminal proceeding will not be allowed to go, and if it is a minor offence, not an economic offence and the delay is too long, not caused by the accused, different considerations may 2 (1992) 1 SCC 255 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 15 arise but each case must be left to be decided on its own facts and the right to speedy trial does not become illusory when a time limit is not fixed.” 12. A careful examination of the reply affidavit and the materials placed on record by the State Vigilance Department reveals that the delay occasioned in the present matter cannot be characterized as either deliberate, mala fide, or attributable to any conscious inaction on the part of the investigating agency. On the contrary, the record demonstrates that the investigation involved a complex exercise of financial scrutiny and verification, necessitating the collection and examination of materials from diverse sources over an extended period of time. 13. The materials disclose that the investigating agency was required to undertake a detailed verification of financial transactions, including the scrutiny of funds allegedly remitted from the United States of America towards repayment of vehicle loan installments. The investigation further entailed verification of immovable properties and examination of registration records spread across multiple districts, requiring coordination with various governmental authorities and custodians of public records. Such exercises, by their very nature, are both time-intensive and procedurally intricate. 14. The Court also cannot lose sight of the unprecedented disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which adversely affected the functioning of governmental institutions and significantly impeded the progress of investigations across the country. The operational Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 16 constraints, restrictions on movement, and administrative difficulties occasioned by the pandemic constitute relevant factors while evaluating the reasons for the delay in completion of the investigation. 15. Viewed in its entirety, the material on record indicates that the delay was largely a consequence of the complexity of the investigation and the practical impediments encountered during its course, rather than any deliberate procrastination or lack of diligence on the part of the investigating agency. In such circumstances, the procedural delay, though considerable, cannot be regarded as fatal to the prosecution per se, nor can it, by itself, furnish a sufficient ground for terminating the criminal proceeding at its threshold. 16. Furthermore, the grievance advanced by the Petitioner regarding the alleged non-compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 14.08.2024 in CRLMC No. 2449 of 2024 does not appear to withstand scrutiny in light of the subsequent developments placed on record. A careful examination of the materials available before this Court reveals that the concerns expressed in the said order were duly taken note of by the investigating agency and were subjected to consideration during the course of further investigation. 17. It is pertinent to note that while disposing of CRLMC No. 2449 of 2024, this Court had directed the Investigating Officer to undertake an objective and independent examination of the representation submitted by the Petitioner and to verify whether certain assets sought to be included in the investigation were, in fact, acquired by the Petitioner, legally belonged to him, or had been purchased with Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 17 his financial contribution. The underlying object of the direction was to ensure fairness, transparency, and accuracy in the process of asset verification and to prevent the inclusion of properties having no nexus with the Petitioner. 18. The materials subsequently brought on record indicate that the investigating agency undertook the exercise contemplated by the aforesaid order and proceeded to examine the ownership, source of acquisition, and financial linkage of the assets in question. Thus, the allegation that the directions of this Court were completely ignored or rendered otiose is not borne out by the record. 19. In the considered view of this Court, once the Investigating Officer has acted upon the judicial directions and has undertaken the requisite verification in compliance therewith, the Petitioner's contention regarding non-compliance stands substantially diluted, if not altogether rendered academic. The subsequent steps taken by the investigating agency effectively dispel the apprehension that the investigation was conducted in disregard of the mandate issued by this Court. 20. Accordingly, this Court is unable to hold that the continuation of the investigation suffers from any legal infirmity on account of non- compliance with the order dated 14.08.2024. The grievance sought to be projected by the Petitioner in this regard stands adequately addressed by the subsequent course of events reflected in the record. 21. It is an admitted position that the investigation in the present case has already culminated in the submission of a charge-sheet before the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 18 Court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. In view of such development, the Petitioner's contention that the investigation is being kept pending indefinitely or is suffering from perpetual stagnation no longer survives for consideration and is rendered legally unsustainable. Once the investigating agency has completed its inquiry and placed its final report before the competent court, the challenge founded upon alleged indefinite pendency of the investigation loses much of its force. 22. This Court further finds that the principal defenses sought to be projected by the Petitioner pertain to the source of income, the existence of independent business earnings, the nature and ownership of the assets under scrutiny, and the financial transactions relied upon by the prosecution. These assertions are intrinsically factual in nature and are likely to require a detailed examination of documentary evidence, financial records, witness testimony, and other materials that form part of the prosecution case. 23. The law is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the High Court does not sit in appeal over the findings of the investigating agency nor undertake a meticulous evaluation of disputed questions of fact. The inherent jurisdiction is not intended to facilitate a roving enquiry into the truthfulness of rival factual claims or to adjudicate upon matters that properly fall within the province of the trial court. 24. Whether the properties in question were acquired from lawful and independent sources, whether the explanations offered by the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 19 Petitioner are satisfactory, and whether the prosecution has correctly assessed the financial transactions and assets attributed to him are all matters requiring evidentiary adjudication. Such issues can only be determined upon a full-fledged trial after the parties have been afforded an opportunity to lead evidence and test the rival claims in accordance with law. 25. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the defence sought to be projected by the Petitioner raises contentious factual issues which cannot be conclusively examined in a petition for quashing. To undertake such an exercise at this preliminary stage would amount to conducting a mini-trial, a course consistently deprecated by judicial precedent. Accordingly, the disputed factual assertions advanced by the Petitioner are matters to be urged before the learned trial court and do not furnish a valid ground for invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court. V. CONCLUSION: 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon an anxious and careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, coupled with the culmination of the investigation in the submission of the charge-sheet after due verification and reassessment of the assets in question, disclose sufficient grounds for the matter to proceed in accordance with law. 27. The contentions advanced by the Petitioner predominantly involve disputed questions of fact, which are amenable to adjudication only Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jun-2026 18:44:28 Signature Not Verified Page 20 before the competent trial court. Consequently, this Court finds no justifiable ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, and the prayer for quashing the prosecution is accordingly declined in the interest of justice. 28. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed. 29. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 25th June, 2026/