-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
In a compelling judgment Orissa High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a woman arrayed as an abettor under Section 109 IPC in a disproportionate assets (DA) case against her husband, a former Motor Vehicle Inspector. Justice A.K. Mohapatra held that the proceedings, continuing for over two decades without trial or framing of charges, violated the petitioner’s fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21, and found no prima facie material suggesting she participated in the crime.
“Arraying the spouse, who is a housewife, in the absence of any specific material with regard to her involvement in the crime, would be an abuse of the process of law.”
The case originated in 2004, when Vigilance PS Case No. 20/2004 was registered against the petitioner’s husband, Chittaranjan Senapati, then a Junior M.V.I., for accumulating disproportionate assets to the tune of ₹29,65,272. Following raids, several properties and documents were seized. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the petitioner was implicated as an abettor merely for being his wife.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, no charge has been framed, and trial has not begun even after 20 years. The petitioner filed the CRLMC application seeking quashing of proceedings against her.
“There Is No Direct Evidence That She Participated in the Crime — Only Marital Ties Are Shown”
The petitioner argued that she had been running a cold storage and other legitimate businesses since 1995, had paid taxes, and the income from her business (₹12.32 lakh), sale of property (₹2.59 lakh), and GPF loans (₹8 lakh) were not considered by the Investigating Officer. Together, these sources could neutralize the disproportionate assets, if properly included.
“It is not the case of the Vigilance Department that the petitioner has not filed the IT returns properly… yet her income has been ignored.”
She also pointed out that several assets were not in her name, or had been sold before the check period ended, but were still attributed to her as abettor.
“Mere Ownership of Assets by a Dependent Spouse Does Not Prove Abetment”
The Court referred to the decision in Smt. E. Swarnalata v. State of Odisha (Vigilance) (2024 ILR-CUT-1465), where proceedings against a similarly placed wife were quashed.
“The coordinate bench held that mere ownership of assets by a dependent spouse does not automatically amount to abetment under Section 109 IPC.”
Justice Mohapatra extended the principle to the present case and observed that: “Mere recording of assets in the name of the dependants, without there being any other material to prove direct involvement in accumulating them, should not result in arraignment under Section 109 IPC.”
“Twenty Years Without Trial — A Blatant Violation of Article 21”
The Court expressed deep concern at the extraordinary delay in commencement of trial and noted that there are still 73 witnesses left to be examined.
“This case is an apt scenario to exercise the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C… The right to speedy trial of the accused has undeniably been violated.”
Referring to landmark judgments including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, the Court reiterated that the right to speedy trial is an inalienable component of personal liberty, and “no procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as fair and just.”
“Vigilance Must Not Mechanically Add Spouses — Relationship Alone Is No Proof of Guilt”
In a strong admonition to investigating agencies, the Court remarked: “It has become a regular practice to add such dependants without even conducting a preliminary enquiry with regard to their role in the alleged crime.”
“Most of the times, the addition of spouse is only due to relationship, trust, or love and affection — not mens rea. That is not enough to prosecute someone criminally.”
The Court clarified that while such assets can be attached or confiscated, criminal prosecution must be based on specific material, not assumptions.
Quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the Court observed: “The continuation of prosecution in absence of trial, charge, and material evidence would only amount to harassment and abuse of the judicial process.”
Justice A.K. Mohapatra directed that proceedings in Vigilance PS Case No. 20/2004, pending before the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, be quashed against the petitioner, while trial against other accused shall proceed expeditiously.
This judgment reinforces the doctrine that criminal law cannot be stretched to rope in family members without proof, and that prolonged prosecution without progress is a denial of justice, not its delivery.
Date of Decision: April 16, 2025
