Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 522 of 2026 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). Srikanta Kumar Pakal …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Sr. Adv. along with associates. For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-16.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-22.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, by way of the present petition, has assailed the legality and validity of F.I.R. No. 756/2025 dated 28.12.2025 registered at Choudwar Police Station, UPD, Cuttack, along with all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, instituted for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 223, 352, 353(1)(b), 296 and 66(D) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and has prayed for quashing of the same in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 2 (i) The in the present case, is stated to be a social activist engaged in matters concerning public welfare, transparency, and accountability, and has been actively associated with activities involving the use of statutory mechanisms, including the Right to Information Act, for redressal of public grievances and dissemination of information. (ii) On 28.12.2025, an F.I.R. bearing No. 756/2025 came to be registered against the Petitioner at Choudwar Police Station, UPD, Cuttack, alleging commission of the offences as stated therein. (iii) The aforesaid F.I.R. was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 66(D) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with Sections 223, 296, 352, and 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (iv) The said F.I.R. came to be instituted solely on the basis of a written report submitted by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which, in turn, was founded upon an internal police enquiry conducted vide S.D.E. No. 09 dated 13.11.2025. (v) The F.I.R. alleges that the Petitioner is habitually involved in creating public disturbance, uses abusive and unparliamentary language on social media platforms, frequently criticises statutory authorities and public bodies, and had allegedly obstructed public servants in discharge of their official duties during the construction of a service road along NH-55. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 3 (vi) The alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 13.11.2025, whereas the F.I.R. came to be registered only on 28.12.2025, thereby reflecting an unexplained delay of approximately 45 days in setting the criminal law into motion. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present CRLMC Application seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Sr. Advocate earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The case of the Petitioner is that the impugned F.I.R. No. 756/2025 has been lodged suo motu by the Police Authorities. It is contended that the Inspector-in-Charge of Choudwar Police Station directed his subordinate officer to enquire into an allegation reflected in Station Diary Entry No. 09 dated 13.11.2025, and pursuant thereto, the present F.I.R. came to be registered against the Petitioner. (ii) The Petitioner further contends that the impugned F.I.R. is a classic instance of vague, omnibus, and bald allegations, inasmuch as it broadly accuses the Petitioner of creating public disturbances, instigating protests, and obstructing the construction work of the NH-55 service road for alleged personal gain, without specifying any overt act attributable to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that although allegations have Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 4 been made regarding use of “abusive and unparliamentary language” against public officials and statutory institutions on social media platforms, the F.I.R. does not reproduce or identify any specific statement, post, expression, or material so as to prima facie substantiate such accusations. (iii) The Petitioner contends that in the absence of any “corpus” i.e., the actual words, text, or alleged electronic content purportedly used, the invocation of Sections 66(D) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is ex facie unsustainable in law. It is submitted that without clear disclosure of the offending material or specific attribution of the alleged electronic communication, the essential ingredients of the said offences are not made out, rendering the continuation of the criminal proceedings legally untenable. (iv) The Petitioner submits that Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 contemplates impersonation by personation through communication devices or computer resources, whereas, in the present case, even as per the prosecution version, the alleged posts were made from the Petitioner’s own identifiable and public social media account, and there is no allegation whatsoever of impersonation or assuming the identity of another person. (v) It is further contended that invocation of Section 67 of the Information Technology Act is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as mere criticism, however strong or uncomfortable, of public Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 5 institutions or authorities cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be equated with “obscene” material within the meaning of the said provision, which is confined to content that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or has the tendency to deprave and corrupt persons likely to read, see, or hear the same. (vi) The Petitioner further submits that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are wholly absent in the present case. It is contended that there is no specific promulgated order or lawful direction alleged to have been violated by the Petitioner so as to attract Section 223 of the BNS. Likewise, there is no allegation of any physical act, gesture, or performance of any song or similar act in a public place which could possibly bring the case within the ambit of Section 296 of the BNS. (vii) It is further contended that the Petitioner, being an RTI activist, is entitled to exercise his right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to criticise statutory authorities in good faith. In the absence of any allegation of incitement to violence or creation of public disorder, mere expression of dissent or alleged “distrust” towards public institutions cannot, by itself, amount to public mischief so as to attract Section 353(1)(b) of the BNS. (viii) The Petitioner submits that there exists an unexplained delay of approximately 45 days in the registration of the F.I.R., inasmuch as the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 6 13.11.2025, whereas the F.I.R. came to be instituted only on 28.12.2025. It is contended that such inordinate and unexplained delay in setting the criminal law into motion, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, casts serious doubt on the genuineness and credibility of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner. (ix) The Petitioner further contends that the police machinery has been set into motion at the behest of the Odisha Information Commission pursuant to an order passed in Second Appeal No. 898 of 2023. It is submitted that the Commission, being a statutory authority vested with adequate legal powers to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in the event of any allegedly injurious or defamatory statement made against it, could have availed itself of remedies expressly provided under the statutory framework. (x) However, instead of resorting to such lawful remedies, the alleged direction for police intervention is stated to be actuated by mala fides and is an abuse of process, intended to penalize the Petitioner while simultaneously insulating the complainant and/or informant from lawful scrutiny. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties (State), Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC earnestly made the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 7 (i) The Opp. Party contends that the F.I.R. has been lawfully registered on 28.12.2025 pursuant to an enquiry conducted by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Choudwar Police Station, in compliance with the direction issued by the Inspector-in-Charge. (ii) It is submitted that during the course of such enquiry, it was revealed that the Petitioner, under the guise of an RTI activist, was allegedly in the habit of creating public disturbances by raising frivolous issues on social media platforms, instigating public protests, and using abusive and unparliamentary language against government officials and statutory institutions, thereby allegedly lowering their dignity and reputation in society. (iii) The Opposite Party further contends that the Petitioner had allegedly gone to the extent of making derogatory and abusive remarks against the Odisha Information Commission, an autonomous statutory adjudicatory authority, with the mala fide intention of creating public distrust and undermining the credibility of its functioning. (iv) It is submitted that the said conduct was occasioned pursuant to an order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Commission, wherein it was categorically observed that statutory rights under the RTI Act and the Press Council framework do not extend to any misuse thereof in a manner prejudicial to public order, and that such conduct may attract penal consequences under relevant provisions relating to cyber offences. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 8 (v) The Opposite Party contends that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected five pages of social media posts, which also included certain remarks and posts allegedly made against the Government of Odisha and concerned authorities. It is further submitted that, in order to ascertain the authenticity and origin of the said material, a request letter has been issued to the Facebook Law Enforcement Authority under the Meta Platform seeking production of relevant details and documents in connection with the aforesaid social media posts. (vi) The Opposite Party further maintains that the Petitioner, in connivance with certain local anti-social elements, had allegedly obstructed the ongoing public work relating to the construction of the National Highway-55 service road at Choudwar, despite lawful execution of the project. It is asserted that the Petitioner misused his position and influence to harass public officials, interfere with the discharge of their official duties, and disrupt the smooth execution of public work, thereby causing deliberate inconvenience to the general public, purportedly to advance his own personal interests and vendetta. (vii) The Opposite Party contends that the aforesaid acts of the Petitioner, being high-handed in nature and amounting to misuse of position and influence, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 223, 352, 353(1)(b), and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66(D) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 9 (viii) The Opposite Party vehemently contends that the Inspector-in- Charge, Choudwar Police Station, has acted strictly in accordance with law in initiating proceedings and registering the F.I.R. suo motu, without awaiting a formal complaint, in view of the cognizable nature of the offences disclosed during the enquiry. (ix) It is submitted that such prompt action was necessitated to maintain public order and ensure the smooth functioning and integrity of public institutions and authorities. The Opposite Party further contends that any failure on the part of the police to take cognizance and act upon material disclosing commission of cognizable offences would amount to dereliction of duty under law. 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 to be noted that the scope of interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is well settled. 7. It is further a well-settled principle of law that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court ought not to embark upon a meticulous enquiry into the reliability, admissibility, or sufficiency of the evidence collected during investigation. 8. The scope of interference at such stage is inherently limited and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in exceptional circumstances where continuation of the criminal Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 10 proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court or where no offence is disclosed on the face of the record. 9. In the present case, the Petitioner, being a social activist engaged in matters concerning public causes, transparency, and accountability, and actively associated with the use of statutory mechanisms including the Right to Information Act, has approached this Court seeking quashing of the F.I.R. registered against him for the alleged commission of offences as stated therein. 10. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that criminal law cannot be set into motion on the basis of vague, sweeping, and omnibus allegations, particularly where such allegations tend to criminalise lawful and peaceful exercise of rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 11. In the present case, it is contended that the impugned F.I.R. has been registered in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind, and without disclosing specific overt acts constituting the alleged offences, thereby rendering the initiation of criminal proceedings ex facie unsustainable in law. 12. This Court is of the considered view that, in the present case, the nature of the alleged instigation attributed to the Petitioners has not been specifically spelt out, nor have any particular words, acts, or gestures been ascribed to them with requisite clarity and precision. In the absence of such particulars, there exists no tangible or legally sustainable basis to attribute the alleged conduct to the Petitioners so as to bring their acts within the four corners of the offences alleged. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 11 13. Furthermore, the Investigating Agency has failed to place on record any cogent material indicating the specific or definite role of the Petitioners in the alleged incident. In such circumstances, the allegations, being vague and unsupported by necessary particulars, do not prima facie disclose commission of the offences alleged. 14. This Court is also of the considered view that, although the Petitioner, being a social activist, is entitled to the exercise of rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and other statutory frameworks, such rights are not absolute in nature and are subject to reasonable restrictions recognised under law. It is well-settled that every right is accompanied by corresponding duties and obligations, and it is incumbent upon the holder of such rights to act within the confines of law while exercising the same, maintaining due regard to the rights of others as well as the larger interest of society. 15. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and upon due appreciation of the materials available on record, the present Petition stands allowed. V. CONCLUSION: 16. In view of the foregoing analysis, and upon an anxious, careful, and comprehensive consideration of the material facts, records, and circumstances attendant to the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety. 17. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Page 12 18. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 22nd May, 2026