Orissa High Court
Damodar Murmu vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) ….. Opp. Party on 19 June, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2024 of 2025
Damodar Murmu ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Pradeep Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
State Of Odisha (Vig.) ..... Opp. Party
Represented By Adv. -
Sanjay Kumar Das,
Standing Counsel for the
Vigilance Dept.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
19.06.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Dept. Perused the 482 Cr.P.C.
application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present application has been filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the Vigilance Case bearing
Balasore VGR Case No.02/2014 arising out of Balasore Vigilance
P.S. Case No.04/2014 for commission of offences punishable
under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption of Act, 1988 and Sections 409/120-B/201 of the I.P.C.
pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance,
Page 1 of 3.
Keonjhar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended
that on a plain reading of the F.I.R., no case is made out against
the present Petitioner. He further contended that although the
Petitioner, who is working as a G.P.T.A., has done the
measurement work, however, check measurement authority of the
same is the Assistant Engineer. He further submitted that the work
is still on-going and the entire allegation made in the F.I.R. is with
regard to excess payment made to the contractor. He further
submitted that on the basis of the allegation made in the F.I.R., no
case under the alleged section is prima facie made out against the
present Petitioner. He further contended that the allegation, basing
upon which the F.I.R. has been registered, has not been detected
during any audit, as no audit has been conducted.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Dept. on the
other hand contended that the investigation is still on. Therefore,
the prosecution has expressed that more incriminating material is
likely to be collected during such investigation. In such view of
the matter, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Dept.
submitted that the criminal proceeding lodged against the present
Petitioner should not be interfered with at this stage.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on
record, further keeping in view the fact that the investigation is
still on, the present application is being disposed of by granting
liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds at the time of
framing of charge by filing an application for discharge. In such
eventuality, learned court in seisin over the matter shall do well to
Page 2 of 3.
consider such grounds on its own merit and strictly in accordance
with law and shall dispose of such application by passing a
reasoned order.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the CRLMC application
stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3.
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 23-Jun-2025 10:05:03