Presence of ₹10 Lakh Bribe in Petitioner’s Car Cannot Be Ignored—Investigation Cannot Be Stifled at Incipient Stage: Orissa High Court Refuses to Quash FIR in High-Profile CBI Probe

“It is premature to conclude anything on the petitioner’s role when ₹10 lakh was recovered from a vehicle standing in his name. The investigation must be allowed to run its course.” — Justice A.K. Mohapatra

Orissa High Court, in a decisive ruling by Justice A.K. Mohapatra, dismissed two criminal original petitions seeking quashing of FIR and CBI summons in a ₹10 lakh corruption case involving a top PSU official. The case stemmed from a trap laid by the CBI against public servants alleged to be involved in soliciting bribes in exchange for bill clearances and tender approvals.

The petitioners, a private individual and his company, sought intervention under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)—analogous to Section 482 of the CrPC—to quash the FIR and ongoing investigation. The Court firmly refused to intervene, holding:

“This Court finds no justification to stifle a legitimate investigation without waiting for the final outcome thereof.”

Private Individuals Who Facilitate Bribery Can Be Prosecuted Under the PC Act—FIR Discloses Cognizable Offences

“A non-public servant can very well be convicted for abetting offences under the provisions of the PC Act”— Orissa High Court on Scope of Corruption Law

The central legal issue raised by the petitioner was that being a private individual, he could not be implicated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court rejected this argument, referring to the plain language of the Act and Supreme Court jurisprudence, especially P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1091.

The Court observed:

“There is no such provision or rule which unequivocally excludes a private individual from falling within the scope of the PC Act... a non-public servant can very well be convicted for abetting offences under the provisions of the PC Act.”

This settled the proposition that the PC Act extends to all persons—public or private—who facilitate, conspire, or abet acts of corruption involving public servants.

FIR Need Not Be an Encyclopedia—Later Involvement Unearthed by Investigation Is Valid

The petitioner argued that his name did not appear in the original FIR and that his implication later in the investigation was illegal. The Court ruled this to be untenable, reminding that FIRs are merely preliminary triggers for investigation and need not contain exhaustive details:

“An FIR is not an encyclopaedia of the entire case. A person can be implicated during investigation if new material surfaces.”

Referring to multiple precedents including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court emphasized that the focus must remain on whether the FIR, read with subsequent discoveries, disclosed any cognizable offence. It answered in the affirmative.

“₹10 Lakh Cash Found in Petitioner’s Car—A Prima Facie Link Exists That Cannot Be Ignored”: No Grounds for Quashing FIR

The most compelling factor in the Court’s reasoning was the discovery of ₹10 lakhs—allegedly the exact bribe amount—in the petitioner’s Mercedes vehicle. This fact, corroborated by the CBI’s Observation-cum-Recovery Memorandum and the presence of independent witnesses, was found to be sufficient prima facie material to warrant further probe:

“A sum of ₹10 lakhs... was recovered from the Petitioner’s vehicle... the Petitioner’s involvement in the present case cannot be ruled out.”

The Court stressed that such material, while not conclusive of guilt, “raises sufficient suspicion to justify continuation of investigation.”

The petitioner’s attempt to explain away the incident as an act of merely moving a carry bag, and his assertion that he neither knew the contents nor had any dealings with the alleged bribe-givers, was found unpersuasive at this stage.

“This Is Not the Stage for Mini-Trials—Procedural Irregularities, If Any, Can Be Examined Post Charge-Sheet”: Judicial Interference Declined

While the petitioner raised allegations of procedural lapses—including improper recovery memos, absence of time stamps, no site plans, delay in arrest, and absence of immediate seizure of vehicles—the Court was clear that such issues are not determinative at the stage of quashing. Referring to CBI v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 37 and Punit Beriwala v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, the Court stated:

“This is not the stage to conduct a mini-trial. The veracity of such procedural claims must be tested at trial or while considering discharge, not at the stage of FIR quashment.”

The petitioner's assertion that the investigation was “malicious” and “vindictive” was similarly rejected as unfounded.

Demand for Phone Password Not Per Se Violative of Article 20(3), But Issue Left Open for Future Consideration

The petitioners also raised a constitutional objection—arguing that the CBI’s demand for disclosure of mobile phone passwords violated their fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The CBI countered that a password was merely a tool for accessing evidence, not “testimonial compulsion.”

While refraining from ruling conclusively on this complex legal issue, the Court held:

“The issue concerning Article 20(3) has been noted and is left open for future examination.”

This leaves room for future judicial determination on whether compelled disclosure of passwords crosses constitutional thresholds of self-incrimination.

“Let the Investigation Continue—No Ground to Quash Legitimate Prosecution”

In conclusion, the High Court refused to quash the FIR or the summons to the petitioner-company, stating in unequivocal terms:

“On a careful overall analysis... this Court finds no justification to stifle a legitimate investigation without waiting for the final outcome thereof.”

The petitions were dismissed, but the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to “approach this Court after conclusion of the investigation and consequential filing of the charge sheet, if so advised.”

This judgment reaffirms the settled legal principle that courts will not interfere at the threshold of investigation unless the allegations are demonstrably absurd, non-cognizable, or motivated by malice.

Date of Decision: 22 October 2025