Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 4882 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). Debadutta Dash …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Susanta Kumar Das, Sr. Adv. Along with Ms. Kritita Banjerjee, Adv. & Mr. Prabin Das, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, Standing Counsel for Vigilance CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-18.05.2026 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 quashment of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.39 of 2001, corresponding to Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 2 V.G.R. No. 39 of 2001, pending before the learned A.C.J.M. (Special), Cuttack. The challenge is directed against the order of cognizance dated 07.09.2013, and the Petitioner contends that the continuation of the proceeding, after having faced the ordeal of criminal prosecution for more than twenty-five years, amounts to an abuse of the process of law. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The records reveal that on 12.10.2001 at about 3:00 P.M., the Inspector of Police, Vigilance, received reliable information to the effect that rice allotted under the “Food for Work Programme” to the Saline Embankment Division, Cuttack, and stored in the Jagatpur Godown, was being illegally disposed of at Malgodown, Cuttack, without being distributed to the labourers for whom it was intended. (ii) Acting upon the aforesaid information, the Vigilance officials proceeded to the spot and conducted a preliminary verification. During the course of such inquiry, it was prima facie revealed that certain government officials, in alleged connivance with private contractors, were diverting rice allotted under the “Food for Work Programme” from Rajnagar to Malgodown, Cuttack. (iii) The prosecution alleges that such diversion was undertaken in contravention of the objectives of the welfare scheme, thereby depriving the intended beneficiaries of the allotted food grains and causing corresponding loss to the State exchequer. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 3 (iv) Consequent upon the aforesaid allegations and the materials gathered during the preliminary inquiry, an F.I.R. was registered against the Petitioner and two other co-accused persons for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 408, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 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 contends that the although the F.I.R. was registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 409, 408, and 120-B of the IPC as well as Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Vigilance authorities, upon completion of investigation, did not find sufficient material to sustain the said allegations. It is contended that after nearly eleven months from the date of registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating Agency submitted the final form on 27.09.2002 only under Sections 406 and 120-B of the IPC against three accused persons, including the present Petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the dilution of the charges itself demonstrates the absence of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 4 material supporting the graver allegations initially levelled against the Petitioner. (ii) The Petitioner further contends that the charge-sheet was laid against three accused persons and the trial commenced accordingly. It is contended that, during the pendency of the proceeding, one of the co-accused, namely Agani Charan Behera, approached this Court and succeeded in obtaining an order quashing the criminal proceeding insofar as he was concerned. (iii) However, since the present Petitioner had not, at the relevant point of time, sought similar relief before this Court, the prosecution has continued against him alone. According to the learned counsel, the Petitioner has thus remained exposed to the rigours of a protracted criminal trial notwithstanding the quashment of the proceeding against a similarly situated co- accused. (iv) The Petitioner submits that the criminal proceeding, which originated in the year 2001, has remained pending for an extraordinarily long period without any meaningful progress. It is contended that out of the total 18 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 10 witnesses have been examined till date. The learned counsel points out that the trial has remained stalled at the stage of examination of P.W. No. 11, whose examination-in-chief was only partly recorded and thereafter deferred for verification of certain documents. Despite the lapse Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 5 of several years, the said witness has not reappeared before the trial court for completion of his evidence, resulting in complete stagnation of the trial. (v) It is further submitted that the Petitioner has been compelled to endure the ordeal of a pending criminal prosecution for more than two decades without any fault attributable to him. According to the learned counsel, the inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial, coupled with the inability of the prosecution to secure the attendance of its own witness, has subjected the Petitioner to prolonged uncertainty, mental agony, and serious prejudice. The continuance of such a proceeding, it is argued, amounts to a violation of the Petitioner's fundamental right to a speedy trial and constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. (vi) The Petitioner submits that in an effort to secure the attendance of P.W. No. 11, the learned trial court, by order dated 18.05.2023, was constrained to issue a bailable warrant of arrest with a bail amount of Rs.1,000/-. However, despite such coercive process having been issued, the warrant remained unexecuted for a prolonged period of nearly twelve months, and no satisfactory report was forthcoming from the concerned authorities regarding its execution. It is contended that the witness ultimately reappeared before the trial court only on 17.01.2025, after an inordinate lapse of approximately twenty months from Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 6 the date of issuance of the warrant, without any explanation for his prolonged absence. (vii) Learned counsel argued that the aforesaid circumstances unmistakably demonstrate the lack of diligence on the part of the prosecution in conducting the trial and securing the attendance of its witnesses. According to the Petitioner, the repeated adjournments and prolonged inactivity in the proceeding cannot be attributed to any conduct on his part and have resulted solely from the prosecution's failure to effectively prosecute the case. It is submitted that such unexplained delays have unnecessarily prolonged the criminal proceeding and subjected the Petitioner to continued hardship and uncertainty. (viii) It is further contended that the extraordinary delay in the conduct of the trial, coupled with the prosecution's apparent inability to ensure the presence of its own witnesses, has rendered the continuation of the proceeding oppressive and unjust. Learned counsel submits that the prolonged pendency of the case for over two decades, without any meaningful progress, constitutes a serious infraction of the Petitioner's right to a speedy trial and amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court, warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS. (ix) The Petitioner contends that the prolonged pendency of the criminal proceeding has caused severe and irreversible prejudice to him both professionally and financially. It is Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 7 contended that during the course of service, the Petitioner was deprived of promotional avenues solely on account of the pendency of the present vigilance case, thereby adversely affecting his career progression and service prospects. (x) It is further submitted that the prejudice suffered by the Petitioner did not cease upon retirement. Learned counsel pointed out that although the Petitioner superannuated from service on 30.04.2024, he has allegedly been denied the release of his retiral and superannuation benefits on account of the pendency of the criminal proceeding. According to the Petitioner, despite having rendered long years of service, he continues to be deprived of the monetary and service benefits lawfully accruing to him after retirement. (xi) Learned counsel therefore contended that the inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial has resulted in consequences far beyond the ordinary rigours of criminal prosecution. The prolonged pendency of the case for more than two decades has allegedly impaired the Petitioner's career advancement, withheld his post-retirement benefits, and subjected him to continuous mental agony and financial hardship. It is thus submitted that the continuation of the proceeding, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, amounts to manifest injustice and an abuse of the process of the Court. (xii) The Petitioner submitted that a perusal of the order sheets from the inception of the proceeding till 29.07.2025 reveals a Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 8 consistent pattern of delay and lack of diligence on the part of the prosecution in conducting the trial. It is contended that the repeated adjournments and slow progress of the case are attributable to prosecutorial lapses rather than any act or omission on the part of the Petitioner. (xiii) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the extraordinary delay in the conduct of the trial constitutes a clear infraction of the Petitioner's fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the prolonged pendency of the proceeding, for reasons not attributable to the Petitioner, has rendered the continuation of the prosecution arbitrary, oppressive, and constitutionally impermissible. 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 delay in conclusion of the trial cannot be attributed solely to the prosecution. It is contended that out of the 21 charge-sheeted witnesses, 11 witnesses have already been examined, while 4 witnesses have become untraceable and 3 witnesses have expired during the pendency of the proceeding. (ii) Learned counsel further submitted that although the charge- sheet was filed on 27.09.2002 and cognizance was taken in 2004, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 9 the charge could be framed only on 07.09.2013. It is also pointed out that the trial remained stayed till 28.08.2018 on account of proceedings initiated at the instance of a co-accused person. Therefore, according to the Opposite Party, a substantial part of the delay is attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the prosecution and not to any deliberate inaction on its part. (iii) The Opp. Party further submits that the Petitioner cannot entirely disassociate himself from the delay in the trial. It is contended that during the subsistence of the stay order obtained at the instance of a co-accused, the Petitioner also derived the benefit thereof and did not take any effective steps for expeditious disposal of the case. (iv) In particular, the Petitioner did not move the trial court seeking separation or splitting up of the trial so that the proceeding against him could continue independently. According to the Opposite Party, having acquiesced in the situation and availed the benefit of the stay, the Petitioner cannot now attribute the entire delay solely to the prosecution. (v) Furthermore, that the delay in disposal of the case cannot be viewed in isolation from the conduct of the accused persons, including the present Petitioner. It is contended that on several dates fixed for hearing, the accused persons were found absent, resulting in repeated adjournments and consequential delay in the progress of the trial. According to the Opposite Party, the prolonged pendency of the proceeding is, therefore, attributable Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 10 not only to the prosecution but also to the conduct of the accused persons themselves. (vi) It is further argued that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to derive advantage from a delay to which he has substantially contributed the accused. Learned counsel submits that a party who has, by act or omission, contributed to the prolongation of a proceeding cannot subsequently invoke such delay as a ground for seeking quashment of the prosecution. Accordingly, it is contended that the plea of violation of the right to a speedy trial is not available to the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (vii) The Opp. Party further contends that upon submission of the charge-sheet, the learned trial court was vested with ample powers to secure the attendance of both the accused persons and the witnesses by resorting to coercive measures, including issuance of non-bailable warrants and other processes recognized in law. It is contended that where witnesses fail to appear despite issuance of process, the trial court is not rendered powerless and may, in appropriate circumstances, close the prosecution evidence and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. (viii) According to the learned counsel, the delay in conclusion of the proceeding cannot be attributed exclusively to the prosecution merely because some witnesses could not be secured. It is argued that the overall delay is the result of multiple factors, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 11 including the conduct of the accused persons and procedural impediments encountered during the course of the trial. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot seek quashment of the proceeding by placing the entire burden of delay upon the prosecution. (ix) The Opp. Party further contends that the prosecution has a limited role in securing the attendance of witnesses and cannot be held solely responsible for their non-appearance or avoidance of the judicial process despite service of summons. It is contended that once summons are duly issued, the attendance of witnesses and accused persons is ultimately subject to compliance with the process of the Court, and where such process fails, the Court may resort to coercive measures, including issuance of non-bailable warrants, to secure their presence. (x) It is further argued that the prosecution cannot be faulted for every instance of delay arising from the absence of witnesses or accused persons. According to the learned counsel, the trial is still in progress and the prosecution evidence is presently being recorded. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the proceeding has not reached a stage where the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised to terminate the prosecution. The Opposite Party, therefore, submits that the petition for quashing be dismissed and the trial be permitted to proceed to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 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 apposite to note that the contours of the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are no longer res integra. The said jurisdiction, though wide in amplitude, is to be exercised with great circumspection, sparingly, and only in exceptional circumstances where such intervention becomes necessary either to give effect to an order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The inherent power is not intended to stifle legitimate prosecution at its inception, nor is it a substitute for a full-fledged trial. Rather, it serves as a constitutional safeguard against frivolous, vexatious, or legally untenable proceedings which, if permitted to continue, would result in miscarriage of justice. 7. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to examine whether the allegations contained in the complaint, F.I.R., or charge-sheet, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose the commission of any offence. The Court does not embark upon an appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact at this stage. 8. However, where the uncontroverted allegations fail to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, or where the criminal Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 13 proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted for an ulterior purpose, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent powers to interdict such proceedings and prevent abuse of the process of law. 9. It is equally well settled that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court does not function as a court of trial or appeal and, therefore, ought not to undertake a meticulous examination of the reliability, admissibility, probative value, or sufficiency of the evidence collected during the course of investigation. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not intended to facilitate a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact or an assessment of the evidentiary worth of the materials placed on record, matters which fall squarely within the province of the trial court. 10. The inherent jurisdiction is, therefore, required to be exercised on the basis of the broad probabilities emerging from the record and not upon a meticulous dissection of the evidentiary material. Questions relating to the credibility of witnesses, admissibility of documents, inconsistencies in statements, or the ultimate sufficiency of the prosecution evidence are matters reserved for determination by the competent trial court upon appreciation of evidence during trial. Any premature evaluation of such matters in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would amount to trenching upon the jurisdiction of the trial court and would be contrary to the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent powers. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 14 11. The scope of interference by the High Court at this nascent stage of the criminal proceeding is inherently circumscribed and must be exercised with utmost restraint, judicial circumspection, and a heightened sense of caution. The extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not intended to short-circuit legitimate prosecutions or to substitute the trial process with a preliminary adjudication on disputed facts. Rather, it is an exceptional power preserved to ensure that the administration of criminal justice is not subverted by frivolous, vexatious, or legally untenable proceedings. 12. The underlying rationale is that criminal proceedings should not be interdicted at the threshold merely because the accused raises a plausible defence or disputes the correctness of the allegations. Interference is warranted only where the prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fides, is legally unsustainable on the face of the record, or where allowing the proceeding to continue would result in a miscarriage of justice. The inherent power, being extraordinary in nature, must therefore be exercised with great care so as to strike a delicate balance between protecting individual liberty and preserving the legitimate authority of the criminal justice system. 13. In the case at hand, the Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 07.09.2013 and seeking quashment of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 39 of 2001. The principal plank of challenge rests upon the contention that the prosecution has remained pending Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 15 for an inordinately long period of more than two decades, thereby subjecting the Petitioner to a prolonged and oppressive criminal process in derogation of his fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. According to the Petitioner, the extraordinary delay in bringing the trial to its logical conclusion, coupled with the stagnation of the proceedings for reasons allegedly not attributable to him, has resulted in grave prejudice, mental agony, and serious adverse consequences affecting both his professional and personal life. It is, therefore, contended that the continued pendency of the prosecution has transgressed the constitutional mandate of expeditious justice and rendered the continuation of the criminal proceeding legally unsustainable. 15. The core grievance of the Petitioner, thus, is that the prolonged continuation of the prosecution for over twenty-five years has transformed the process itself into a punishment, warranting exercise of the inherent powers of this Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 16. Adverting to the Petitioner's contention regarding inordinate delay, this Court finds, upon a careful scrutiny of the record, that the prolonged pendency of the trial cannot be attributed solely or exclusively to any lack of diligence on the part of the prosecution. The chronology of events reflected in the case record discloses that although the charge-sheet was submitted on 27.09.2002 and cognizance was subsequently taken in the year 2004, the progress of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 16 the trial was substantially impeded by circumstances beyond the immediate control of the prosecuting agency. 17. The materials on record further reveal that the proceeding remained under the shadow of a judicial stay order till 28.08.2018 on account of legal proceedings initiated by a co-accused person before the competent forum. During the subsistence of such stay, the trial court was effectively precluded from proceeding further with the matter in accordance with law. Consequently, a significant portion of the delay complained of by the Petitioner stands explained by judicial intervention operating in the proceeding and cannot, in fairness, be laid entirely at the doorstep of the prosecution. 18. It is a settled principle that while examining a plea of violation of the right to a speedy trial, the Court is required to undertake a holistic assessment of the causes contributing to the delay and ascertain whether the same is attributable to the prosecution, the accused, systemic constraints, or intervening judicial orders. The mere lapse of time, howsoever considerable, does not by itself furnish a ground for quashing a criminal proceeding unless the delay is shown to be unjustified, oppressive, and predominantly attributable to the prosecuting agency. 19. 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: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 17 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: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 18 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.” 20. And also in the case of CBI v. Ravishankar Prasad & Ors3, wherein it was held that: “43. In our considered view it was extremely unfortunate that the High Court in the impugned judgment has erroneously invoked inherent power of the court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court ought to have considered the entire material available to establish a case against the respondents under section 120-B read with section 420 IPC. It is significant that the respondents and the other bank officials share the charges under section 120-B read with section 420 IPC. Quashing the charges against the respondents would also have very serious repercussions on the pending cases against the other bank officials. 44. In four cases, 92 witnesses have already been examined. The trial of the case was at the advanced stage. At this sage, the High Court has seriously erred in quashing the charges against respondent nos.1 and 2. 45. Quashing the proceedings at that stage was clearly an abuse of the process of the court. The court neither considered the entire material nor appreciated the legal position in proper perspective. The impugned judgment is wholly unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. Unfortunately, because of unnecessary interference by the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. the trial of this case could not be completed and concluded.” 21. Viewed from this perspective, the record does not support the contention that the entire period of delay resulted from prosecutorial indifference or inaction. On the contrary, a substantial segment of the 3 (2009) 6 SCC 351 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 19 pendency appears to have been occasioned by the operation of judicial orders and procedural developments beyond the exclusive control of the prosecution. 22. It is also pertinent to note that the Petitioner remained a beneficiary of the stay order that operated in the proceeding at the instance of the co-accused and continued to enjoy the consequential suspension of the trial during the subsistence of such order. The record does not disclose that the Petitioner took any effective or proactive steps to seek segregation of the proceedings or splitting up of the trial so as to enable an independent and expeditious adjudication of the case against him. 23. In the considered view of this Court, a litigant who has passively acquiesced in the continuance of a judicial stay and has availed the attendant benefits thereof cannot, at a subsequent stage, attribute the entirety of the resulting delay to the prosecution alone. The conduct of the parties is a relevant and significant factor while adjudicating a plea founded upon the alleged infringement of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Court is required to evaluate not merely the length of the delay but also the causes thereof and the extent to which each stakeholder has contributed to the prolongation of the proceeding. 24. The Petitioner's failure to invoke available legal remedies for securing an independent and expeditious trial during the period when the stay order remained operative assumes considerable significance. Having remained a passive beneficiary of the suspension of proceedings, the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 20 Petitioner cannot now be permitted to contend that the entire delay was occasioned solely due to prosecutorial inaction or negligence. Such a contention overlooks the Petitioner's own conduct and the practical effect of the stay order from which he admittedly derived advantage. 25. Accordingly, this Court is unable to accept the submission that the prosecution alone bears responsibility for the prolonged pendency of the case. The factual matrix clearly indicates that the delay was occasioned by a combination of factors, including the operation of judicial orders and the Petitioner's own acquiescence therein, thereby diluting the force of the plea founded exclusively on prosecutorial delay. 26. Furthermore, the record does not support the contention that the delay in the trial is attributable solely to the prosecution. A perusal of the order sheets reveals that on several dates fixed for hearing, the accused persons remained absent, necessitating repeated adjournments and thereby impeding the smooth progress of the trial. Such instances of non-appearance have undeniably contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings and constitute a relevant factor while assessing the plea of violation of the right to a speedy trial. 27. Equally significant is the fact that the prosecution has not remained wholly inactive in prosecuting the case. The materials on record disclose that out of the total charge-sheeted witnesses, as many as 11 witnesses have already been examined. The record further indicates that 3 witnesses have expired during the pendency of the proceeding, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 21 while 4 witnesses have become untraceable over the passage of time. These are circumstances which cannot be entirely attributed to prosecutorial negligence and are reflective of the practical difficulties that inevitably arise in long-pending criminal trials. 28. The record also reveals that effective steps were undertaken to secure the attendance of P.W. No. 11, whose evidence remained incomplete. Pursuant to such efforts, the said witness ultimately appeared before the learned trial court on 17.01.2025, enabling the prosecution to proceed with the recording of evidence. The fact that the witness has been produced and the evidentiary process is presently underway demonstrates that the trial has not reached a state of irreversible stagnation and continues to progress before the learned court below. 29. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution has abandoned the proceeding or that the trial has become incapable of being concluded. On the contrary, the materials available on record indicate that the prosecution evidence is actively being recorded and the matter is moving towards its logical culmination. Consequently, the plea that the proceeding deserves to be terminated solely on the ground of delay does not, at this stage, merit acceptance. 30. The factum of the co-accused case has been interfered by this Court and quashed the same on account of delay, does not automatically warrant this Court to pass an order of parity. This Court is not satisfied with the explanation and argument of parity in quashing the present case. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:33:31 Signature Not Verified Page 22 V. CONCLUSION: 31. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon an anxious, comprehensive, and careful consideration of the facts, circumstances, and materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prolonged pendency of the trial cannot be attributed solely to any lapse or inaction on the part of the prosecution. The record unmistakably demonstrates that the delay is the cumulative consequence of several intervening factors, including the operation of judicial stay orders, the absence of witnesses, and the conduct of the accused persons themselves. As such, the Petitioner's plea that the continuation of the proceeding constitutes a violation of his right to a speedy trial does not merit acceptance in the peculiar facts of the present case. 32. Accordingly, this Court finds no justifiable ground to interdict the prosecution at this stage. The prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.39 of 2001 corresponding to V.G.R. Case No.39 of 2001 is, therefore, declined. The criminal proceeding shall continue and be carried to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. 33. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed. 34. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 25th June, 2026/ CUTTACK