JUDGMENT : Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner in the present petition seeks to quash the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. Case No.2114 of 2013 corresponding to Kumbharapada P.S. Case No. 357 of 2013 registered under Sections 284 and 337 of the I.P.C. I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: i. The petitioner and another have been implicated as accused in Kumbharapada P.S. Case No. 357 of 2013, registered under Sections 284 and 337 of the I.P.C., which ultimately gave rise to G.R. Case No. 2114 of 2013, now pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri. ii. The prosecution case is that on 19.10.2013 at about 11:00 P.M., the informant (O.P. No. 2) went to the District Head Quarter Hospital, Puri for treatment as he was experiencing pain in his abdomen. He was admitted as an indoor patient and was administered two saline bottles. However, when the third saline was administered by the nurse, i.e., the present petitioner, after about 15–20 minutes, his body allegedly started vibrating and irritation was felt in his hands, feet and palms. He also could not see anything and his muscles became stiff. On examination, the doctor allegedly stated that the saline contained some white particles which caused the reaction. It is further alleged that the concerned nurse was found absent thereafter. The informant was then given oxygen and referred to another hospital. iii. In the meantime, investigation has been completed and the I.O. has submitted charge sheet/final form against the petitioner and another for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 284, 337 and 34 of the I.P.C. iv. For the alleged occurrence, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.10.2013 and was subsequently reinstated into service vide order dated 28.12.2013, pending finalization of the departmental proceeding. v. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service from the post of Nursing Sister on 31.12.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. vi. Subsequently, in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the charges were not established and, as such, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against her. The period of suspension was also treated as duty. vii. v. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service from the post of Nursing Sister on 31.12.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. vi. Subsequently, in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the charges were not established and, as such, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against her. The period of suspension was also treated as duty. vii. The informant had also filed a case bearing C.C. Case No. 329 of 2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puri, which was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution. viii. It is further stated that although the petitioner was exonerated in the disciplinary proceeding and the case filed by the informant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puri was dismissed for non-prosecution, she has allegedly been deprived of receiving her pensionary benefits due to the pendency of the present criminal case, which has been pending since the year 2013. ix. Being aggrieved by the continuance of the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 2114 of 2013 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE P ETITIONER 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The petitioner contended that she is not involved in the alleged occurrence and has been falsely implicated, and that the allegations made in the F.I.R. do not make out a prima facie case against her for the alleged offences. ii. The petitioner asserted that though she has been exonerated from the charges in the disciplinary proceeding and the case filed by the informant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puri has been dismissed, yet she has been deprived of receiving her pensionary benefits due to the pendency of the instant criminal case, which has been pending since the year 2013. iii. The petitioner submitted that there are as many as 14 charge-sheeted witnesses, out of whom only one witness, namely Saroj Kumar Nyak, has been examined as P.W.1 on 11.01.2024 and discharged. The other witnesses have not turned up despite summons issued to them, as a result of which there has been delay in the trial of the criminal case. iv. The petitioner submitted that there are as many as 14 charge-sheeted witnesses, out of whom only one witness, namely Saroj Kumar Nyak, has been examined as P.W.1 on 11.01.2024 and discharged. The other witnesses have not turned up despite summons issued to them, as a result of which there has been delay in the trial of the criminal case. iv. It was further contended that the petitioner did not commit any of the alleged offences while discharging her duties as a Nursing Sister, rather, the patient allegedly suffered pain due to a defect in the saline, for which the petitioner was not responsible. v. It was contended that, upon examination of all the circumstances, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges in the departmental proceeding. vi. It was further contended that, in view of the facts and circumstances, the continuance of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 2114 of 2013, pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri, is liable to be quashed. vii. It was further contended that unless the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. Case No. 2114 of 2013 is quashed, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and substantial injury. III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTIES 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite parties made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. Learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the present CRLMC filed by the petitioner suffers from several flaws and is neither legally nor factually maintainable, and therefore deserves to be dismissed with costs. ii. Learned counsel for the opposite party further contended that the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, as there is no abuse of the process of law in the present case. It was submitted that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed without any justifiable ground and, if the same is allowed, it would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the present case is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. iii. It was submitted that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed without any justifiable ground and, if the same is allowed, it would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the present case is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. iii. Learned counsel for the opposite party further contended that on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the present Opposite Party No. 2, Kumbharapada P.S. Case No. 357 of 2013 was registered under Sections 284 and 337 of the I.P.C. on 22.10.2013, which gave rise to G.R. Case No. 2114 of 2013. It was submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted and the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences in accordance with law. Therefore, as there is every chance of conviction, the present CRLMC, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. iv. Learned counsel for the opposite party contended that due to severe pain in the belly, Opposite Party No. 2 went to the District Headquarter Hospital, Puri on 19.10.2013 between 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. and was admitted in the Medicine Ward as an indoor patient. He was administered injections and saline. However, at about 9:45 P.M., after saline was administered, within about 20 minutes his entire body allegedly started throbbing and he felt pain in his palms and feet along with a burning sensation in the body. It was further contended that the treating doctor stated that there was mud and sediment in the saline, and due to administration of such saline by the present petitioner, Opposite Party No. 2 became seriously ill and was subsequently admitted to Apollo Hospital on 21.10.2013. v. It was further contended that the saline administered by the petitioner was not in a proper condition for use and, by administering the same, the petitioner endangered the life of Opposite Party No. 2. Therefore, the present CRLMC is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. vi. It was also contended that the doctor and the treating nurse are liable to be punished for their gross negligence and carelessness, and the offences under Sections 284 and 337 of the I.P.C. are rightly registered. It was submitted that the investigation has been properly conducted by the concerned I.O., and the petitioner should face trial. vii. vi. It was also contended that the doctor and the treating nurse are liable to be punished for their gross negligence and carelessness, and the offences under Sections 284 and 337 of the I.P.C. are rightly registered. It was submitted that the investigation has been properly conducted by the concerned I.O., and the petitioner should face trial. vii. Learned counsel for the opposite party further contended that the order of dismissal for default passed in C.C. Case No. 329 of 2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puri on 14.03.2023 has been challenged by the present Opposite Party No. 2 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, and the appeal is pending. It was therefore contended that the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the said order. viii. It was further contended that the finding of the Consumer Court is not binding upon the present criminal proceeding, as each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. It was submitted that the proceeding arising out of G.R. Case No. 2114 of 2013 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri discloses a prima facie case, and therefore the same is not liable to be quashed ix. Learned counsel for the opposite party further contended that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly. It was submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 sustained mental and physical injury on account of the petitioner, who, while working as a nurse in the District Headquarter Hospital, Puri, administered saline to him on 19.10.2013, which allegedly contained mud and sediment. It was further submitted that the saline was seized and sent to the Forensic Laboratory, Bhubaneswar, and upon receipt of the report the learned S.D.J.M., Puri took cognizance in accordance with law. Accordingly, it was contended that no irregularity has been committed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri and the present petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. IV. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 6. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled. IV. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 6. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled. The inherent power so preserved, though wide in scope, is to be exercised with circumspection and only in exceptional circumstances to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. 7. In this regard, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335. the Supreme Court, while delineating the circumstances in which such power may be exercised, illustrated certain categories of cases where the High Court may intervene to quash criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. In the same vein, the Supreme Court in CBI v. Aryan Singh , (2023) 18 SCC 399 . , observed that at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of criminal proceedings, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It was held that at such stage the Court is not required to consider the case as if it is conducting the trial or to appreciate the evidence in detail. The prosecution is not required to prove the charges at that stage, as the same are required to be established during trial on the basis of the evidence to be led by the prosecution. 9. In the present case, the specific allegation against the petitioner is that while discharging her duties as a Nursing Sister in the District Headquarter Hospital, Puri, she administered saline to Opposite Party No.2 which allegedly contained foreign particles, resulting in an adverse reaction in the body of the patient. 10. 9. In the present case, the specific allegation against the petitioner is that while discharging her duties as a Nursing Sister in the District Headquarter Hospital, Puri, she administered saline to Opposite Party No.2 which allegedly contained foreign particles, resulting in an adverse reaction in the body of the patient. 10. The record reveals that the investigation in the matter has already been completed and charge sheet has been submitted for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 284 and 337 of the I.P.C., whereupon the learned S.D.J.M., Puri has taken cognizance of the offences in accordance with law. 11. Once the investigating agency, upon completion of investigation, has found sufficient materials to proceed against the accused and the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences, this Court would ordinarily be circumspect in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the prosecution at the threshold. 12. The contention of the petitioner that she had no role in the alleged occurrence and that the patient suffered reaction due to a defect in the saline raises disputed questions of fact. Such questions necessarily involve the evaluation of evidence. Similarly, the question as to whether there was any negligence on the part of the petitioner while administering the saline, or whether the alleged reaction occurred due to any other reason, are matters which can only be determined on the basis of evidence to be adduced before the learned Trial Court. At this stage, this Court cannot enter into a detailed examination of such disputed questions of fact in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13. The petitioner has also contended that she has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding initiated against her. However, it is well settled that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate distinctly and are governed by different standards of proof. Exoneration in a departmental proceeding does not automatically result in the quashing of a criminal prosecution, particularly when the allegations in the criminal case disclose the commission of a cognizable offence which requires adjudication in accordance with law. 14. The Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, (2012) 9 SCC 685 . observed in this regard as replicated hereinunder: “24. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court quashed the prosecution on total misreading of the judgment in P.S. Rajya case [ (1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] . 14. The Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, (2012) 9 SCC 685 . observed in this regard as replicated hereinunder: “24. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court quashed the prosecution on total misreading of the judgment in P.S. Rajya case [ (1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] . In fact, there are precedents, to which we have referred to above, that speak eloquently a contrary view i.e. exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in a criminal case. On principle also, this view commends us. It is well settled that the standard of proof in a department proceeding is lower than that of criminal prosecution. It is equally well settled that the departmental proceeding or for that matter criminal cases have to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced therein. Truthfulness of the evidence in the criminal case can be judged only after the evidence is adduced therein and the criminal case can not be rejected on the basis of the evidence in the departmental proceeding or the report of the inquiry officer based on those evidence. 25. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result in the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the prosecution may be quashed. But that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities. Further, they are not in the same hierarchy.” 15. It is also noticed from the record that charge sheet has already been submitted and the criminal proceeding is pending before the learned Trial Court. In such circumstances, the veracity of the allegations and the culpability of the petitioner can only be tested during the course of trial on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. Interference at this stage would amount to prematurely terminating a prosecution which discloses a prima facie case. 16. In such circumstances, the veracity of the allegations and the culpability of the petitioner can only be tested during the course of trial on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. Interference at this stage would amount to prematurely terminating a prosecution which discloses a prima facie case. 16. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the materials collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case and, therefore, the matter is required to be adjudicated upon by the learned Trial Court. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the criminal proceeding in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. V. CONCLUSION: 17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground for interference in the present case and accordingly, the present CRLMC stands dismissed 18. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.2114 of 2013 corresponding to Kumbharapada P.S. Case No. 357 of 2013 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri shall continue in accordance with law. 19. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.