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. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

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 Page 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 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.

Page 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 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. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

Page 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 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 Lal1governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Page 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 "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.

9. In Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat5 , 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. 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 5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 998 Page 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 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.

Page 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55

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. CONCLUSION:

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.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th February, 2026/-