Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 867 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). Anjali Mohanty …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Orissa (Vig) …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Mr. Abhinash Barik, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Niranjan Maharana, SC for the Department of Vigilance CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-12.05.2026 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 criminal proceedings arising out of Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 74 of 2011, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 13 of 2015, presently pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 2 2. The present application has been instituted with a prayer to exercise the extraordinary and inherent powers of this Court for setting aside the aforesaid proceeding on the grounds urged in the petition, the Petitioner contending that the continuation of the prosecution is legally unsustainable and amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The prosecution case had its genesis in a search operation conducted by the Vigilance Department on 29.09.2011 in connection with the assets and properties of the Petitioner's husband, who was then serving as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Pursuant to the said search and the ensuing investigation, a check period was fixed for the purpose of assessing the income, expenditure, and assets of the public servant. (ii) Upon completion of the financial scrutiny and asset verification, the investigating agency allegedly found that the public servant had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of ₹62,42,695/-, which, according to the prosecution, could not be satisfactorily accounted for during the course of investigation. (iii) During the course of investigation, the present Petitioner, Smt. Anjali Mohanty, was arrayed as a co-accused on the allegation that she had knowingly aided and abetted her husband in the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 3 acquisition and concealment of assets allegedly disproportionate to his known sources of income. The prosecution case alleges that a substantial portion of the assets under scrutiny had been acquired in the name of the Petitioner with the object of masking the true ownership and source of funds. (iv) Upon completion of the financial assessment, the Vigilance Department classified the present Petitioner as a housewife having no substantial independent source of income during the relevant check period, except the rental income allegedly derived from the multi-storied residential building situated at Milan Villas, Similipada, Angul. The investigating agency proceeded on the premise that, apart from such rental receipts, the Petitioner did not possess sufficient lawful income capable of independently supporting the acquisition of the assets standing in her name, and accordingly treated the said assets as linked to the alleged disproportionate assets of the principal accused. (v) Upon completion of the investigation, the Vigilance Department submitted its charge-sheet on 30.01.2014 against the accused persons. On receipt of the final report and the accompanying materials, the learned trial Court took cognizance of the alleged offences and proceeded to frame charges against the principal accused public servant under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 4 (vi) The present Petitioner was also arraigned as an accused and charged under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly abetting the commission of the aforesaid offence by facilitating the acquisition and holding of assets purportedly disproportionate to the known sources of income of the public servant. (vii) During the course of the trial, the Petitioner has consistently asserted that she is an independent income-tax assessee possessing lawful and distinct sources of income accumulated over a considerable period of time. According to the Petitioner, she earned income through various vocations and professional engagements, including her service as a Course Coordinator at the Bureau of Data Processing System, Angul, employment as a Data Entry Operator at Sree Metalliks Ltd., participation in catering-related business activities, and earnings derived from rental receipts and sale proceeds of immovable properties. (viii) It is her specific stand that the assets standing in her name were acquired from her independent and legitimate sources of income and not from any funds allegedly disproportionate to the known sources of income of her husband. (ix) Alleging that she has been unnecessarily subjected to prolonged criminal prosecution and continued hardship on account of a trial that has remained pending for several years, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application seeking appropriate relief. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 5 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: 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Merusagar Samantray earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) He contends that the materials collected during the course of investigation do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute any offence of abetment under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code or any culpable involvement in the alleged accumulation of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is submitted that the prosecution has proceeded on an erroneous and fundamentally flawed premise by portraying the Petitioner as a dependent housewife devoid of any independent source of income throughout the relevant check period. (ii) According to the Petitioner, such an assumption stands thoroughly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence demonstrating her long-standing professional engagements and independent earnings. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon various service certificates, employment records, salary statements, income-tax documents, and other contemporaneous records allegedly evidencing her gainful employment and lawful income generation since the year 1993. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 6 (iii) It is further submitted that these documents unmistakably establish that the Petitioner maintained independent sources of livelihood and financial resources, thereby negating the prosecution’s foundational allegation that the assets standing in her name were necessarily acquired from the unexplained income of the principal accused. (iv) The Petitioner, therefore, submits that in the absence of any material demonstrating conscious participation, active assistance, or intentional facilitation in the alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets, the continuation of the prosecution against her is wholly unwarranted and amounts to a misuse of the criminal process. (v) Mr. Samantray further submits that the principal asset sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, namely the duplex residential property situated at Milan Villas, Angul, was acquired by the Petitioner on 31.01.1994, substantially prior to the commencement of the check period and nearly five years before her husband entered government service on 05.04.1999. It is, therefore, contended that the very foundation of the prosecution case insofar as the said property is concerned is inherently unsustainable. (vi) According to the Petitioner, the acquisition of the aforesaid property was financed entirely through her independent financial resources, including personal savings and a duly sanctioned housing loan of ₹2,00,000/- obtained from LIC Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 7 Housing Finance Ltd. The learned counsel submits that the loan transaction is fully supported by contemporaneous documentary records and that the loan liabilities were regularly discharged through the Petitioner’s independent earnings, supplemented by proceeds received under LIC money-back policies standing in her name. (vii) It is thus urged that the documentary materials on record unequivocally demonstrate that the property was neither acquired during the period of public service of the principal accused nor funded through any alleged disproportionate assets attributable to him. Consequently, the inclusion of the said property in the asset calculation, according to the Petitioner, is wholly misconceived and undermines the prosecution’s allegation that she had aided or facilitated the concealment of ill- gotten wealth. (viii) The Petitioner further contends that her Income Tax Returns (ITRs), regularly filed over the years, constitute cogent documentary evidence of her independent financial status and separate sources of income. It is submitted that the returns disclose business receipts and earnings derived from her individual commercial activities, including the sale of computer accessories and catering-related ventures, thereby establishing her long-standing fiscal independence from the principal accused. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 8 (ix) The learned counsel argues that the assets standing in the Petitioner's name are fully supported by lawful and declared sources of income, all of which have been duly reflected in her tax records and other financial documents. According to the Petitioner, the documentary trail clearly demonstrates that the assets in question were acquired from legitimate funds generated through her own professional and business pursuits, independent of the earnings of the public servant. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY: 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Mr. Niranjan Maharana, Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department 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 offences relating to the accumulation of disproportionate assets by public servants constitute serious economic offences affecting public administration and eroding public confidence in the integrity of governmental institutions. Such offences, it is contended, are not merely individual transgressions but grave societal wrongs having far-reaching consequences on the rule of law and public trust. (ii) It is further submitted that the investigation conducted in the present case revealed a deliberate and well-orchestrated scheme adopted by the principal accused public servant for the purpose of concealing assets allegedly acquired through unlawful means. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 9 According to the prosecution, the materials collected during investigation disclose that substantial funds disproportionate to the known sources of income of the public servant were systematically channelled into the acquisition of valuable immovable properties and other assets standing in the name of the present Petitioner. (iii) The Department of Vigilance further contends that the use of the spouse's name for acquisition and retention of such assets was not accidental or innocuous, but formed part of a calculated arrangement intended to camouflage the true ownership of the assets and insulate them from scrutiny and possible forfeiture. It is, therefore, argued that the role attributed to the Petitioner is not merely incidental but constitutes active facilitation of the alleged concealment and retention of assets amassed through corrupt practices. (iv) On the strength of the materials collected during investigation, the prosecution maintains that a prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner and that the issues raised by her pertain to matters of evidence, which are required to be adjudicated during the course of trial and not in proceedings seeking quashment at the threshold. (v) Mr. Maharana further contends that the pleas advanced by the Petitioner concerning her alleged independent sources of income, including earnings from catering activities, business ventures, and ownership of properties acquired prior to the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 10 commencement of the check period, raise disputed questions of fact which are incapable of adjudication in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (vi) The Opposite Party/ Department, therefore, argues that the defence sought to be projected by the Petitioner cannot be accepted at face value at the threshold stage, nor can this Court undertake an assessment of the evidentiary worth of such materials while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. It is a settled principle of law that where the determination of the issues involved necessitates an examination of disputed facts and competing versions, the matter must be left to be adjudicated by the competent trial court on the basis of evidence led by the parties. (vii) Accordingly, Mr. Maharana submits that the contentions raised by the Petitioner constitute matters of defence which are available to her during trial and do not furnish any valid ground for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to stifle a prosecution at its inception. (viii) The learned counsel for the Vigilance Department further submits that the charge-sheet in the present case came to be filed only after a detailed investigation and comprehensive assessment of the assets, income, and expenditure of the accused persons, which allegedly revealed substantial discrepancies and assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of the public servant. According to the prosecution, the materials Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 11 collected during the course of investigation were found sufficient to constitute a prima facie case, leading to the submission of the final report before the competent court. (ix) The Opposite Party/ Department submits that at such a stage, interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction would be wholly unwarranted, particularly when the allegations are supported by materials collected during investigation and the issues raised by the Petitioner involve disputed questions of fact. The prosecution therefore contends that the matter ought to be permitted to proceed to its logical and lawful conclusion before the learned trial Court, where the rival claims of the parties can be adjudicated upon on the basis of evidence adduced during trial. (x) Accordingly, it is submitted that no case is made out for quashing the proceeding at this stage and that the present application is liable to be dismissed. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 7. Upon a careful consideration of the pleadings, the materials available on record, and the legal principles governing the prosecution of non- public servants in cases involving allegations of disproportionate assets, this Court is of the considered view that the continued prosecution of the present Petitioner does not appear to be supported by sufficient prima facie material demonstrating her conscious Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 12 involvement in the alleged commission of the offence. The record suggests that her implication has been based predominantly on her marital relationship with the principal accused who is a public servant, without adequate material establishing active participation, intentional facilitation, or culpable abetment in the acquisition or concealment of the assets in question. 8. The wide and extraordinary powers preserved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are intended to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. The exercise of such jurisdiction becomes imperative where the continuation of a criminal proceeding would result in manifest injustice or where the prosecution is demonstrably unsustainable on the materials available on record. 9. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that offences involving corruption and the alleged misappropriation of public resources constitute serious economic offences warranting strict judicial scrutiny. However, it is equally well established that the gravity of the principal offence cannot justify the indiscriminate prosecution of the family members in the absence of cogent material disclosing their conscious involvement in the alleged criminality. Criminal law recognizes personal culpability and not guilt by association. 10. A spouse or relative of a public servant cannot be mechanically arraigned as a co-conspirator or abettor merely on account of the relationship shared with the principal accused. Where the contemporaneous records and documents collected by the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 13 prosecution itself furnish material supporting the independent financial capacity of such person, the continuation of criminal proceedings despite such evidence would be contrary to the fundamental principles of fairness and justice. 11. This Court is of the opinion that criminal liability cannot be fastened upon a person on the basis of status or relationship alone. In the absence of cogent material disclosing the essential ingredients of abetment or any overt act attributable to the Petitioner, the continuation of the prosecution against her would amount to a mechanical and arbitrary exercise of the criminal process. Permitting such proceedings to continue, despite lack of demonstrable nexus between the Petitioner and the alleged criminal misconduct, would result in unnecessary harassment and would be contrary to the settled principles governing the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the continued implication of the Petitioner constitutes an unwarranted extension of criminal liability and bears the hallmarks of a mechanical and legally unsustainable prosecutorial action, warranting interference to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 13. Similar sentiment is echoed by the Supreme Court in P. Nallammal & Anr v. State represented by Inspector of Police1, wherein it was held that: “15. Thus, the two postulates must combine together for crystallization into the offence, namely, possession of property or resources disproportionate to the known 1 (1999) 6 SCC 559 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 14 sources of income of public servant and the inability of the public servant to account for it. Burden of proof regarding the first limb is on the prosecution whereas the onus is on the public servant to prove the second limb. So it is contended that a non-public servant has no role in the trial of the said offence ajd hence he cannot conceivably be tagged with the public servant for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act.” 14. In the present case, when the materials forming part of the prosecution record itself are relied upon to demonstrate the existence of independent sources of income and lawful acquisition of assets, compelling the Petitioner to undergo the rigours of a prolonged criminal trial would amount to an unwarranted extension of criminal liability. Such a course would not advance the cause of justice but would instead permit the criminal process to operate as an instrument of oppression. 15. A careful examination of the materials placed on record, particularly the contemporaneous banking documents, notarial records, and financial statements, reveals that the principal asset sought to be relied upon by the Vigilance Department, namely the duplex residential property situated at Milan Villas, Angul, was acquired by the Petitioner in January, 1994. Significantly, the said acquisition predates the entry of the principal accused into government service on 05.04.1999 by nearly five years and falls entirely outside the check period fixed by the investigating agency. 16. In such circumstances, this Court finds considerable force in the contention that an asset acquired substantially prior to the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 15 commencement of public service cannot, in the absence of compelling material to the contrary, be readily attributed to the alleged accumulation of disproportionate assets arising from abuse of official position during the check period. The chronological sequence of events assumes considerable significance and substantially weakens the foundational premise upon which the prosecution seeks to link the said property with the alleged corrupt activities of the public servant. 17. The record further discloses that the acquisition and development of the aforesaid property were financed through a duly sanctioned housing loan obtained from LIC Housing Finance Ltd., supported by contemporaneous loan documents and repayment records. The materials placed before the Court further indicate that the loan liabilities were serviced through the Petitioner's personal financial resources, including savings, income disclosed in her Income Tax Returns, and other independently generated revenues. These documents constitute contemporaneous and prima facie reliable evidence demonstrating a distinct and identifiable source of funding for the acquisition of the property. 18. Viewed in its entirety, the documentary record lends substantial support to the Petitioner's assertion that the property in question originated from independently traceable and legally documented sources, rather than from any alleged illicit wealth attributable to the public servant. Consequently, the attempt to treat the said asset as part of the disproportionate assets accumulated during the check period appears, at least prima facie, to be unsupported by the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 16 chronology of acquisition and the financial records available on record. 19. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that while allegations of corruption must undoubtedly be subjected to rigorous judicial examination, the prosecution of a family member cannot be sustained on conjectures, assumptions, or mere familial association when the record itself substantially undermines the foundational basis of such implication. In such circumstances, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court must be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. V. CONCLUSION: 20. In view of the foregoing analysis, and upon a comprehensive consideration of the pleadings, materials on record, and the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is satisfied that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the present Petitioner would amount to a manifest abuse of the process of law. 21. The contemporaneous documentary evidence placed on record, including banking records, loan documents, income-tax returns, and other financial materials, overwhelmingly demonstrates that the principal asset sought to be attributed to the Petitioner was acquired independently and long before the commencement of the check period applicable to the public servant. The prosecution materials themselves fail to disclose any prima facie nexus between the said asset and the alleged disproportionate wealth of the principal accused. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2026 17:14:15 Signature Not Verified Page 17 22. This Court is of the considered opinion that permitting the prosecution to continue against the Petitioner, notwithstanding such unimpeachable documentary evidence, would result in grave prejudice and a palpable miscarriage of justice. The inherent powers of this Court are intended precisely to prevent such unwarranted prosecutions and to secure the ends of justice where the allegations, even when taken at their face value, fail to sustain the criminal liability sought to be fastened upon an accused. 23. Accordingly, the F.I.R., the charge-sheet submitted pursuant thereto, and the consequential order taking cognizance in connection with Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 74 of 2011 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 13 of 2015, pending before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur, are hereby quashed and set aside insofar as they relate to the present Petitioner, Smt. Anjali Mohanty. 24. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed. 25. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 25th June, 2026/ CUTTACK