Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27298 (ORI)

Sangita Swain v. State of Odisha

2026-02-13

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

body2026
JUDGMENT : Sanjeeb K.Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioners, by way of the present petition, seek quashing of the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings in respect of Angul P.S. Case No. 305 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.825 of 2021, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Angul, inter alia, on the ground of subsequent settlement and restitution of the compensation amount. I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: i. The prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR, is that on 13.06.2021 the complainant, Shri R.S. Rawat, Chief Administrative Officer, Air Force, Kalaikunda, Midnapore (West), West Bengal, lodged an FIR against Mrs. Sangita Swain, Secretary of an NGO namely “Human Rights Watch”, Angul. ii. The FIR alleges that the said NGO had filed complaints before the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, being Case Nos. 687/18/1/2017 and 716/18/1/2017, in connection with an incident dated 31.12.2016 at village Chematata in District Balasore, where an infra-red flare allegedly caused death and burn injuries. In the said incident, Master Sameer Naik, son of Liku Naik, died on 31.12.2016, and Ms. Rakhi Naik, daughter of Liku Naik, sustained burn injuries. Mrs. Padmabati Naik, wife of Liku Naik, also sustained burn injuries. iii. It is further alleged that pursuant to a settlement deed dated 22.08.2019 entered into between the parties, compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid to Claimant No.1 and Rs.5,00,000/- to Claimant No.2. In terms of the settlement, the Indian Air Force paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to Mrs. Sangita Swain, as power of attorney holder, through Cheque No. 368679 dated 27.06.2019, which was credited to her SBI account on 28.08.2019. The FIR further alleges that the said amount was not transferred to the actual beneficiaries and that Mrs. Sangita Swain submitted a cash receipt dated 09.09.2019 showing payment of Rs.15,00,000/- to the claimants. According to the prosecution, the Office of the Collector, Balasore reported that no compensation amount had been paid to the beneficiaries either in cash or through cheque or DBT. iv. Taking note of the report dated 01.12.2020 submitted by the Office of the District Magistrate, Balasore, the National Human Rights Commission directed initiation of criminal proceedings against the concerned NGO and its office bearers. iv. Taking note of the report dated 01.12.2020 submitted by the Office of the District Magistrate, Balasore, the National Human Rights Commission directed initiation of criminal proceedings against the concerned NGO and its office bearers. v. On the basis of the said allegations, Angul P.S. Case No. 305 of 2021 was registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. vi. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, a civil suit being C.S. No. 129 of 2022 was instituted before the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul, for realization of the compensation amount. It is stated that during the said proceedings, the entire amount along with accrued interest was deposited before the civil court and was subsequently withdrawn by the beneficiaries in the presence of the complainant. Thereafter, the suit was withdrawn unconditionally. vii. By order dated 04.12.2025, this Court called for a report from the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Balasore, to verify whether the compensation amount had been received by the victims. Pursuant thereto, a report dated 16.12.2025 was submitted stating that an amount of Rs.20,07,873/- had been repaid to the victims. viii. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings. II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE P ETITIONERS 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Investigating Agency has erred, both on facts and in law, in arraying the petitioners as accused without proper application of mind, and that a bare reading of the FIR does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against them. ii. It was contended that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same do not prima facie constitute the offences alleged, inasmuch as no specific overt act, mens rea or actus reus can be attributed to the petitioners. iii. Learned counsel further submitted that initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of the process of law, having been undertaken in a mechanical manner and without due application of mind. iv. iii. Learned counsel further submitted that initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of the process of law, having been undertaken in a mechanical manner and without due application of mind. iv. It was argued that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, arising out of disbursement of compensation, in respect of which Opposite Parties instituted C.S. No. 129 of 2022 before the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul. In the said suit, the entire amount along with accrued interest was deposited before the learned civil court, which was withdrawn by Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 in the presence of Opposite Party No. 2, and thereafter the suit was withdrawn unconditionally. v. Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by this Court, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Balasore conducted an enquiry and reported that a sum of Rs. 20,07,873/- had been repaid to the victims. vi. It was contended that in view of the subsequent settlement and restitution, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, and that the present case falls within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTIES 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. It was submitted that pursuant to a settlement deed dated 22.08.2019, a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was transferred by the Indian Air Force to Mrs. Sangita Swain, Secretary of the NGO, as power of attorney holder, through Cheque No. 368679 dated 27.06.2019. Despite receipt of the said amount, the compensation was allegedly not handed over to the claimants. It was further submitted that an independent inquiry conducted by the Indian Air Force on 10.12.2019 revealed that only a sum of Rs.10,000/- had been paid to the claimants towards transport and food expenses. ii. It was contended that subsequent enquiries conducted by the Office of the Collector, Balasore, including the report dated 01.12.2020, confirmed that the compensation amount had not been paid to the claimants, on the basis of which the National Human Rights Commission directed initiation of criminal proceedings against the concerned NGO. iii. ii. It was contended that subsequent enquiries conducted by the Office of the Collector, Balasore, including the report dated 01.12.2020, confirmed that the compensation amount had not been paid to the claimants, on the basis of which the National Human Rights Commission directed initiation of criminal proceedings against the concerned NGO. iii. Learned counsel submitted that accordingly Angul P.S. Case No. 305 of 2021 was registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 409 of the IPC, leading to registration of G.R. Case No. 825 of 2021 before the learned S.D.J.M., Angul, which is presently pending. iv. It was further submitted that C.S. No. 129 of 2022 was instituted for recovery of the compensation amount, and that the suit came to be withdrawn only after the petitioners deposited the entire amount along with interest on 05.03.2025, i.e., after registration of the criminal case. v. Learned counsel contended that withdrawal of the civil suit does not amount to any compromise insofar as the criminal proceedings are concerned, and that no settlement has been entered into between the parties for quashing of the FIR or the criminal case. vi. It was argued that the criminal case pertains to offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery, which are distinct from civil liability and cannot be effaced merely by subsequent repayment of the amount. vii. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners, acting under the garb of an NGO, were entrusted with compensation meant for vulnerable victims and allegedly misappropriated the same, thereby breaching the trust reposed in them. viii. It was contended that multiple enquiry reports, including those of the Indian Air Force and the Collector, Balasore, supported by statements of the claimants, prima facie disclose intentional misappropriation by the petitioners. ix. Learned counsel submitted that the subsequent deposit of the compensation amount with interest was made only after initiation of both civil and criminal proceedings and does not absolve the petitioners of the alleged criminal acts. x. It was further contended that the materials collected during investigation disclose sufficient grounds to proceed to trial. xi. Learned counsel submitted that quashing of the FIR at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution. xii. x. It was further contended that the materials collected during investigation disclose sufficient grounds to proceed to trial. xi. Learned counsel submitted that quashing of the FIR at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution. xii. Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty , (2022) 16 SCC 703 , Shafiya Khan v. State of U.P. /b>., (2022) 4 SCC 549 , and Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu , (2022) 15 SCC 164 , it was contended that the power under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and that the present case does not fall within the parameters warranting quashing. IV. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. The question that arises for consideration in the instant case is whether the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC ought to be exercised to quash the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings, particularly in view of the subsequent restitution of the compensation amount. 7. At the outset, it is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. 8. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Supreme Court elucidated: “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. (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.” 9. In Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 998 , the Supreme Court reiterated the limited and circumscribed scope of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. It is thus settled that at the stage of consideration of a petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Court is not concerned with the reliability of the allegations, nor can it embark upon appreciation of evidence. It is thus settled that at the stage of consideration of a petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Court is not concerned with the reliability of the allegations, nor can it embark upon appreciation of evidence. The inherent power is to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, and not to short-circuit legitimate prosecution. 11. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, this Court proceeds to examine whether the allegations made in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners. 12. The undisputed factual position is that a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was transferred by the Indian Air Force to Mrs. Sangita Swain in her capacity as power of attorney holder for the purpose of disbursement to the beneficiaries. The allegation in the FIR is that despite such entrustment, the compensation amount was not paid to the beneficiaries and that a cash receipt dated 09.09.2019 was submitted showing payment of the entire amount. 13. The prosecution relies upon enquiry reports of the Indian Air Force and the Office of the Collector, Balasore, which allegedly indicate that the beneficiaries had not received the compensation amount at the relevant time. The allegation of submission of a receipt allegedly evidencing payment also forms the basis for invoking Sections 468 and 471 IPC. 14. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the entire amount along with accrued interest has since been repaid and verified through the report of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Balasore, and that the civil suit instituted for recovery has been withdrawn unconditionally. 15. While subsequent restitution is a relevant circumstance, it cannot by itself constitute a ground for quashing criminal proceedings where the allegations disclose entrustment and prima facie misappropriation. In offences such as criminal breach of trust or cheating, the crucial question is whether there was dishonest intention at the time of entrustment or at the time of alleged withholding of the amount. Such intention is ordinarily a matter to be inferred from evidence. 16. Whether the petitioners had the requisite mens rea, whether the amount was intentionally withheld, and whether the receipt allegedly produced was genuine or fabricated are matters that require appreciation of evidence and examination of witnesses. These are not issues that can be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. 17. 16. Whether the petitioners had the requisite mens rea, whether the amount was intentionally withheld, and whether the receipt allegedly produced was genuine or fabricated are matters that require appreciation of evidence and examination of witnesses. These are not issues that can be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. 17. The argument that the dispute is purely civil in nature cannot be accepted at this stage. The mere availability of a civil remedy or subsequent settlement does not ipso facto extinguish criminal liability if the allegations disclose ingredients of the offences alleged. 18. On a prima facie consideration of the FIR and the materials referred to by the prosecution, this Court is of the considered view that the case does not fall within any of the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) so as to warrant quashing of the proceedings at the threshold. V. C ONCLUSION 19. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash Angul P.S. Case No. 305 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 825 of 2021 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Angul. 20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the trial court while deciding the case on merits. 21. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed. 22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.