Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi has dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an ongoing investigation initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Court directed that the probe be allowed to proceed without interference, citing that judicial oversight at this stage would be premature. The petition was deemed an ill-advised invocation of Article 226, intended to derail a legitimate investigation. The Court concluded that the investigation must continue unimpeded and that writ jurisdiction cannot be used as a shield against statutory processes.

The case arises from FIR No. RC 2172024A0017 registered by the CBI on 07.12.2024 under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR alleges that Chanchal Mukherjee, Group General Manager of Bridge & Roof Co. Ltd., demanded a bribe of ₹10,00,000 from Santosh Moharana, Director of M/s Penta A Studio Pvt. Ltd. The bribe was allegedly for clearing project bills and facilitating future contracts. The CBI laid a trap the same day, claiming that the bribe money was received by Mukherjee and passed on to Debadutta Mohapatra. The cash was allegedly recovered from Mohapatra’s vehicle in the presence of independent witnesses.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores FIR Over Alleged Gold Loan Fraud | Says Patna HC Erred In Treating Complaint As Malicious Without Trial Evidence

The CBI also claimed that a call was made from Mukherjee’s phone at around 7:50 PM on the same day, instructing Mohapatra to receive the bribe. It was suspected that the call was made by Petitioner No.1, a senior IAS officer. The investigation further noted that Petitioner No.1 had a meeting with Mukherjee earlier regarding a ₹50 crore SC/ST Department project. The CBI also alleged that Petitioner No.3, daughter of Petitioner No.1, had received expensive gifts from Mohapatra.

Subsequent searches were conducted on 18.02.2025 at Petitioner No.1’s official residence in Bhubaneswar and Petitioner No.3’s hostel room at IIM Lucknow. Judicial warrants were obtained. Devices such as mobile phones, laptops, and external drives were seized. The CBI alleged obstruction during these searches, including refusal to provide device passcodes and submission of damaged devices.

The Petitioners argued that there was no direct or indirect evidence linking Petitioner No.1 to the alleged crime. They denied all allegations and contended that allocation of work to the CPSU was policy-driven. They alleged harassment, procedural violations, illegal seizure of devices, and damage to Petitioner No.3’s mental health due to intrusive investigation.

The CBI defended its actions by asserting that searches were conducted under valid judicial warrants and procedural safeguards were followed. It argued that actions of the Petitioners, including obstructing the investigation and failing to disclose key information, justified further inquiry. The agency maintained that constitutional remedies were being misused and that statutory processes had not been exhausted by the Petitioners.

"The Court’s role is not to supervise probes in real time. It begins only once the process crystallises into a charge-sheet. Any attempt to judicially intrude into the investigative stage risks not only distorting this balance but also weakening the integrity of the criminal justice system itself."

"The present petition, examined in light of the above doctrine, appears to be a textbook case where interference would be premature and inappropriate."

"Stopping an investigation in its tracks would require a finding that even if the facts alleged are true, no offence is made out, a condition plainly not satisfied in a bribery scenario with documented recovery of money."

"Courts do not, and must not, create separate lanes for those in high office who feel inconvenienced by being subject to the same law as everyone else."

"Article 226 is not a vehicle for circumventing lawful scrutiny. It is a constitutional remedy of last resort, not a substitute for statutory mechanisms."

"The petition discloses no prima facie breach of fundamental rights, nor any denial of natural justice or jurisdictional excess."

"When such an individual is named in a serious corruption probe, the Court cannot pretend that ordinary safeguards suddenly become excessive or optional."

"Presumption of innocence remains with the petitioners until proven guilty, but presumption of innocence is not a presumption against investigation."

"Corruption at high levels is not a matter of isolated misconduct. It speaks to a breach of the social contract, where those entrusted with public power allegedly turn it into private currency."

The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating: "This Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The petition is dismissed as premature and not maintainable, the investigation being at an ongoing stage. The CBI is at liberty to continue its investigation in accordance with law, without any interference from this Court."

"The reliefs sought by the petitioners to interdict or quash the FIR/investigation are refused."

"The petitioners are reprimanded for this ill-advised litigation. They ought to have first pursued remedies like cooperating with the investigation or approaching the appropriate court if any specific illegality arose, rather than prematurely approaching the High Court."

Also Read: Cart Cannot Be Placed Before The Horse | Calcutta High Court Dismisses Tata Motors' Bias Impleadment Plea As Premature In Arbitration Stay Proceedings

"The extraordinary writ power under Article 226 cannot be permitted to be used as a shield by individuals (howsoever high-placed) to fend off legitimate inquiries."

"Nothing in this judgment shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the allegations against the petitioners. The observations herein are only for the purpose of deciding the maintainability of the writ petition at the present stage."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Devashis Panda, Senior Advocate along with associates
For the Respondents: Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Advocate (For CBI)

Case Title: Bishnupada Sethi and Ors. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.
Neutral Citation: NA
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 5905 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi

[Read/Download order]