Mechanically charging spouses in vigilance cases an abuse of process of law: HC
Cuttack: Orissa high court has held that mechanically implicating spouses in vigilance cases is an abuse of the process of law, while quashing criminal proceedings initiated against a woman as her husband is the principal accused in a disproportionate assets case registered more than two decades ago.
Initially, allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets (DA) were made against Chittaranjan Senapati, a junior motor vehicle inspector (MVI).
During enquiry, it was found that Senapati had allegedly accumulated DA to the tune of Rs 29.65 lakh. Hence, vigilance registered a case against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2004.
After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed with Senapati as principal accused and implicating his wife, Sasmita Pradhan, as an abettor. However, after more than two decades, no charges have been framed and no trial has commenced yet. Sasmita challenged the criminal proceedings against her in HC in 2024.
While giving “a reality check on the vigilance cases”, Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra on Wednesday said, “More often than not, the vigilance department mechanically adds spouses or dependants, who are mere name lenders, to acquire the property. Most of the time it is because of the relationship, trust, or love & affection without there being any intention to participate in the crime. It has become a regular practice to add such dependents without even conducting a preliminary enquiry with regard to their conduct and role in the alleged crime.”
“Furthermore, to ascertain the intention of the accused neither any enquiry is made nor any prima facie materials are brought on record to establish the involvement of such dependants, “Justice Mohapatra observed, adding, “On the contrary, such assets recorded in their name can very well be attached and confiscated on establishment of the fact that such assets have been acquired from the ill-gotten money.”
Accordingly, Justice Mohapatra opined that “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”.
“As such, keeping in view the larger interests of justice and to prevent further abuse of the processes of the court, this court has no hesitation in quashing the criminal proceeding against the petitioner,” he added.
“The valuable right of the petitioner for a speedy trial has indeed been hampered in the present criminal proceeding owing to the inordinate delay of more than two decades in commencement of trial,” Justice Mohapatra observed while also directing that “every endeavour should be made to conclude the trial in respect of the other accused as expeditiously as possible”.
The Judge also noted the vigilance department has also not put forth any reasonable or exceptional circumstances to satisfactorily explain the prolonged and inordinate delay in commencement of the trial.
Initially, allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets (DA) were made against Chittaranjan Senapati, a junior motor vehicle inspector (MVI).
During enquiry, it was found that Senapati had allegedly accumulated DA to the tune of Rs 29.65 lakh. Hence, vigilance registered a case against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2004.
After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed with Senapati as principal accused and implicating his wife, Sasmita Pradhan, as an abettor. However, after more than two decades, no charges have been framed and no trial has commenced yet. Sasmita challenged the criminal proceedings against her in HC in 2024.
While giving “a reality check on the vigilance cases”, Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra on Wednesday said, “More often than not, the vigilance department mechanically adds spouses or dependants, who are mere name lenders, to acquire the property. Most of the time it is because of the relationship, trust, or love & affection without there being any intention to participate in the crime. It has become a regular practice to add such dependents without even conducting a preliminary enquiry with regard to their conduct and role in the alleged crime.”
“Furthermore, to ascertain the intention of the accused neither any enquiry is made nor any prima facie materials are brought on record to establish the involvement of such dependants, “Justice Mohapatra observed, adding, “On the contrary, such assets recorded in their name can very well be attached and confiscated on establishment of the fact that such assets have been acquired from the ill-gotten money.”
Accordingly, Justice Mohapatra opined that “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”.
“As such, keeping in view the larger interests of justice and to prevent further abuse of the processes of the court, this court has no hesitation in quashing the criminal proceeding against the petitioner,” he added.
“The valuable right of the petitioner for a speedy trial has indeed been hampered in the present criminal proceeding owing to the inordinate delay of more than two decades in commencement of trial,” Justice Mohapatra observed while also directing that “every endeavour should be made to conclude the trial in respect of the other accused as expeditiously as possible”.
The Judge also noted the vigilance department has also not put forth any reasonable or exceptional circumstances to satisfactorily explain the prolonged and inordinate delay in commencement of the trial.
