Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1103 of 2026 along with CRLMC Nos.1104 of 2026, 1105 of 2026 & 1115 of 2026 (In the matter of petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Devender Kumar Gupta (In CRLMC No.1103 of 2026) Subhash Chander Rishi @ Subash Chandra Rishi (In CRLMC No.1104 of 2026) Prem Kumar Bhatia (In CRLMC No.1105 of 2026) Rajiv Chaturvedi (in CRLMC No.1115 of 2026) …. Petitioner (s) -versus- Central Bureau of Investigation …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Jaiveer Shergill, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Dash, Adv. For Opp. Party (s) : Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING: -21.05.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -25.06.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above- mentioned matters, the same were heard together and are being Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:55:57 Signature Not Verified Page 2 disposed of by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience and proper adjudication, CRLMC No.1103 of 2026 is treated as the leading case. 2. The petitioner is seeking the quashing of FIR No. RC0152021A0007 dated 30.09.2021, registered by the CBI, ACB, Bhubaneswar, along with the consequential charge-sheet dated 27.12.2023 and the order of cognizance passed in T.R. No. 01/2024, presently pending before the Court of the Learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. I. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. A complaint dated 05.07.2021 was filed by PEC Limited through its Senior Manager, Mr. Jyoti Prakash Mohapatra, alleging irregularities in certain trade finance transactions stated to have been undertaken during the years 2012–2013. 4. The Petitioner joined PEC Limited in March, 1977 and served in various capacities during his tenure, including as General Manager (Marketing) from 31.03.2008 until his retirement in December, 2011. Thereafter, he was engaged as a Consultant with PEC from January, 2012 to August, 2015. 5. During 2012–2013, M/s Maa Tarini Industries Limited (MTIL) approached PEC Limited for trade finance facilities for procurement of iron ore. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:55:57 Signature Not Verified Page 3 6. MTIL submitted its application along with supporting documents to PEC, which was processed through the concerned divisions of PEC. Site inspections of MTIL’s premises were conducted by PEC officials, and reports were obtained from surveyors and security agencies. 7. An Associateship Agreement dated 05.10.2012 was executed between PEC and MTIL for a sanctioned limit of Rs. 8 crores. 8. In connection with the said transaction, MTIL executed Deeds of Pledge in favour of PEC and furnished post-dated cheques and other documents as required under the arrangement. 9. A Tripartite Agreement dated 05.10.2012 was executed between PEC, MTIL and G4S Security Services Pvt. Ltd. for deployment of security personnel at the designated site. 10. A lease deed dated 01.10.2012 was executed between MTIL and PEC relating to storage arrangements for the pledged material. 11. Following completion of documentation and internal processing, PEC disbursed funds to MTIL in phases through bank transfers to MTIL’s designated account, and the transactions were recorded in PEC’s official records. 12. The sanctioned financial limit was subsequently enhanced through additional disbursements under an Addendum Agreement dated 30.09.2013, resulting in total disbursement of approximately Rs. 19.40 crores. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:55:57 Signature Not Verified Page 4 13. On 05.07.2021, a complaint was filed by PEC Limited through its Senior Manager, alleging irregularities in trade finance transactions pertaining to the period 2012–2013. 14. On 30.09.2021, the CBI registered FIR No. RC0152021A0007 against certain officials of PEC Limited, including the Petitioner, and against the Directors and representatives of MTIL. 15. The FIR, inter alia, alleged irregularities in sanction and disbursement of funds, verification of stock, and compliance with internal procedures, and further referred to allegations regarding invoices and storage of pledged goods. 16. The CBI conducted investigation and recorded statements of witnesses and collected documents during the course of inquiry. 17. Upon completion of investigation, the CBI filed a charge-sheet dated 27.12.2023 against the Petitioner and other accused persons for offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 18. On 13.03.2024, the learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the accused persons, including the Petitioner. 19. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR No. RC0152021A0007 dated 30.09.2021 registered by the CBI, ACB, Bhubaneswar, along with the consequential charge-sheet dated Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:55:57 Signature Not Verified Page 5 27.12.2023 and the order of cognizance passed in T.R. No. 01/2024, presently pending before the Court of the Learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar, arising out of offences punishable under Sections 120- B, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS: 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. There exists an unexplained delay of almost a decade in setting the criminal law into motion, which creates serious doubt on the genuineness of the allegations and militates against the presumption of bona fides. ii. During the intervening period, no objection or protest was raised by PEC Limited before any authority alleging criminal misconduct on the part of the Petitioner, and the transactions were treated as commercial in nature with disputes, if any, confined to recovery proceedings. iii. The belated registration of FIR appears to be an afterthought intended to shift the burden of financial losses from PEC Limited onto its former officials. iv. The absence of any contemporaneous complaint or action for nearly a decade indicates that there was no suspicion of fraud or criminality at Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:55:57 Signature Not Verified Page 6 the relevant time, and the initiation of proceedings at such a belated stage is contrary to settled legal principles. v. The charge-sheet materially expands the scope of prosecution by introducing additional and substantially graver offences, including Sections 409, 468 and 471 IPC, without any new facts or incriminating material emerging during investigation. The entire charge-sheet is based on the same set of transactions, documents and circumstances as the FIR, and therefore the enlargement of offences is arbitrary and unsupported by investigation. vi. The addition of Sections 409, 468 and 471 IPC reflects a mechanical and unsupported expansion of the prosecution case beyond the scope of the original allegations. vii. The allegations against the Petitioner are wholly omnibus, with no specific overt act or individual role attributed to him. viii. The Petitioner has been arrayed in the proceedings merely by virtue of his official designation, without any consideration of his actual role in the transactions in question. ix. The Petitioner has been wrongly arrayed in the present proceedings despite the complete absence of any specific role, overt act, or incriminating material linking him to the alleged offences. The allegations are omnibus in nature and rest solely on his erstwhile designation in PEC. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:55:57 Signature Not Verified Page 7 x. The prosecution is founded on conjectures, assumptions, and statements of interested persons without any substantive or documentary material establishing criminal misconduct attributable to the Petitioner. xi. The investigation has proceeded on mere suspicion rather than objective evaluation of records and institutional procedures of PEC, thereby falling short of the standards of fairness and neutrality required in criminal jurisprudence. xii. The continuation of the prosecution, in the absence of foundational facts and a prima facie case, amounts to abuse of the process of law and subjects the Petitioner to unwarranted criminal trial. xiii. The charge-sheet is vitiated by arbitrariness as it expands the scope of the FIR by introducing additional and graver offences without any corresponding new material emerging during investigation. xiv. The entire prosecution case against the Petitioner is based on his former official designation and ignores the admitted position that the relevant transactions occurred when he was not in any managerial, executive, or decision-making capacity. xv. The Petitioner, during the relevant period, had no sanctioning power, no authority to approve or disburse funds, no supervisory control, and no unilateral decision-making authority, and acted only within a collective institutional framework. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:55:57 Signature Not Verified Page 8 xvi. All approvals and disbursements were part of a multi-tier institutional decision-making process involving multiple divisions and the competent authority/Committee of Management, and not the unilateral act of any individual officer. xvii. The allegation of failure to ensure due diligence, verification, or compliance is contrary to the contemporaneous record, which reflects that disbursements were made only after procedural compliance, inspections, and creation of security. xviii. There is no material showing any meeting of minds, conspiracy, illegal gratification, or personal gain attributable to the Petitioner; mere participation in institutional processes cannot constitute conspiracy or criminal misconduct. xix. Reliance on documents in the ordinary course of official business cannot, in the absence of mens rea or knowledge of falsity, amount to forgery, cheating, or criminal breach of trust. xx. The allegation of lack of due diligence is further negated by the existence of contractual safeguards, including post-dated cheques, undertakings, and recovery mechanisms, which demonstrate adequate protection of PEC’s interests. xxi. The allegation of double pledging is unsupported by material and is contradicted by the contractual terms, contemporaneous records, and judicial proceedings, which indicate existence and availability of pledged stock under PEC’s control. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:55:57 Signature Not Verified Page 9 xxii. The prosecution ignores binding judicial and contemporaneous records indicating that the dispute remained commercial in nature and that pledged security was available, thereby undermining the criminal allegations. xxiii. The alleged financial loss arose due to market fluctuations and commercial risk inherent in commodity trade finance, and cannot be retrospectively attributed to criminal intent or misconduct. xxiv. The prosecution seeks to criminalise bona fide commercial and administrative decisions taken in good faith in the course of official duties, which is impermissible in law. xxv. The invocation of criminal jurisdiction in the present case is an afterthought and reflects a belated attempt to convert a commercial dispute into a criminal prosecution. xxvi. The continuation of the proceedings would result in grave prejudice, harassment, and miscarriage of justice, and amounts to abuse of the criminal process. xxvii. The present case is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court as the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. xxviii. The impugned FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of law. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:55:57 Signature Not Verified Page 10 III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 21. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently opposed the prayer made in the present petition and submitted that the FIR, charge-sheet and material collected during investigation disclose a clear prima facie case against the Petitioner and that the role of the Petitioner is evident from the record and cannot be brushed aside at this stage and that the pleas raised by the Petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which require detailed examination during trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and that the present petition is an attempt to derail a legitimate prosecution which otherwise warrants trial and therefore deserves to be dismissed. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 22. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 23. The scope of interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of criminal proceedings is well settled. The Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or embark upon an appreciation of evidence but is required to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. It is further well settled that where the allegations are found to be inherently improbable or where the continuation of proceedings Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:55:57 Signature Not Verified Page 11 amounts to abuse of the process of law, this Court would be justified in exercising its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice. 24. In the present case, the principal contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that he has been arrayed in the proceedings merely on account of his past official designation and that no specific role, overt act or material has been attributed to him in relation to the alleged transactions. It is further contended that the transactions in question pertain to a structured commercial arrangement undertaken through institutional mechanisms of PEC Limited involving multiple levels of scrutiny, approvals and safeguards, and that the Petitioner had no unilateral authority in sanctioning or disbursing funds. 25. On the other hand, the prosecution contends that the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates involvement of senior officials of PEC, including the Petitioner, in the decision- making process leading to disbursement of funds in alleged violation of internal norms. 26. At this stage, it is not possible for this Court to undertake a detailed examination of the evidentiary value of the documents or to adjudicate upon the correctness of competing versions, which would necessarily require a full-fledged trial. However, it is also settled that mere repetition of allegations or general attribution of responsibility by virtue of designation, without specific role attribution, may not be sufficient to compel an accused to face criminal trial, if the basic ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:55:57 Signature Not Verified Page 12 27. A perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet indicates that the allegations broadly relate to alleged irregularities in sanction and disbursement of trade finance facilities and alleged non-compliance with internal procedures of PEC Limited. 28. The defence of the Petitioner is primarily premised on the assertion that the entire transaction was a structured institutional decision taken through multiple layers of approval and that the Petitioner had no exclusive or independent authority in respect of the same. These aspects, including the exact nature of the Petitioner’s role, the extent of his authority, and whether there was any conscious participation in the alleged acts, are matters which are intertwined with disputed questions of fact and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. The allegation of absence of role attribution and the contention that the Petitioner was not part of the decision-making authority are issues which would require examination of evidence during trial and cannot form the sole basis for quashing proceedings at the threshold. 29. Similarly, the contentions raised with regard to delay, commercial nature of transactions, and adequacy of safeguards are matters which, though argued with emphasis, also require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 30. This Court is of the considered view that the material placed on record does disclose prima facie allegations which warrant examination during trial and it cannot be said at this stage that the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:55:57 Signature Not Verified Page 13 31. The contention that the Petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of designation is a matter which may be examined in detail by the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence led by the parties. 32. In view of the settled legal position governing the scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC, this Court is not inclined to embark upon a detailed appreciation of evidence or to record findings on disputed factual issues. V. CONCLUSION: 33. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, or the order taking cognizance in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 34. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous cases are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed. 35. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice the trial court in any manner, which shall proceed independently in accordance with law. 36. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 25th June, 2026 / CUTTACK