The Orissa High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against several accused in a case arising out of a 2018 protest at the Board of Secondary Education (BSE), Odisha, holding that no prima facie case was made out against them. The Court, however, allowed the trial to continue against a few named accused and directed the trial court to conclude the matter expeditiously.
The judgment was delivered by Justice A.K. Mohapatra on January 16, 2026, while hearing two connected petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Read also:- Rajasthan HC Rules RTE Quota Applies at Pre-School Level, Strikes Down State’s Restricted Entry Policy
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident dated February 27, 2018, when a group of students and activists allegedly staged a protest outside the office of the Board of Secondary Education (BSE) in Cuttack over an alleged question paper leak.
According to the FIR lodged at Mangalabag Police Station, around 30–35 demonstrators gathered near the BSE office, raised slogans, and submitted a memorandum. The situation allegedly escalated when the crowd became unruly, entered the office premises, damaged property, and allegedly assaulted staff and security personnel. The FIR also alleged that some female employees were manhandled and public property was damaged.
Following the incident, police registered a case under multiple sections of the IPC, including rioting, wrongful restraint, assault, criminal intimidation, attempt to murder, and provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. A charge sheet was later filed against 21 persons.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Bihar Rule Requiring Pharmacy Diploma for Govt Jobs, Rejects Degree-Only Claims
What the Petitioners Argued
The accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. Their counsel argued that:
- Most of the petitioners were not named in the FIR.
- Witnesses failed to identify the accused during deposition.
- The informant herself admitted she had not seen the incident directly.
- No medical evidence conclusively proved injuries.
- The allegations were vague and omnibus in nature.
- Continuing the case would amount to misuse of the criminal justice process.
One of the petitioners also pointed out that the pendency of the criminal case was affecting his government employment, despite having no criminal antecedents.
State’s Stand
The State opposed the plea, arguing that:
- Some petitioners were specifically named in the FIR.
- The trial had already progressed substantially.
- The High Court should not conduct a mini-trial under Section 482 CrPC.
- The allegations were serious and involved public disorder and damage to property.
The prosecution maintained that the matter should be decided by the trial court on evidence.
Court’s Observations
After examining the FIR, witness statements, medical records, and earlier judicial precedents, the High Court noted several key aspects:
- Many of the accused were not named in the FIR.
- Witnesses failed to clearly identify the petitioners.
- Medical evidence only showed minor injuries with no direct link to the accused.
- One co-accused, tried separately as a juvenile, had already been acquitted on similar evidence.
- The allegations were largely general and unsupported by specific material.
The Court reiterated settled law that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice.
“The High Court must intervene where continuing the prosecution would amount to harassment and misuse of judicial process,” the bench observed.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Upholds Bank Officer's Dismissal, Says Courts Can't Reassess Disciplinary
Final Decision
The Court partially allowed the petitions and ruled as follows:
- Criminal proceedings were quashed against all petitioners except five accused who were specifically named in the FIR.
- The order taking cognizance dated November 14, 2018, was set aside for the remaining petitioners.
- The trial against the five named accused will continue.
- The trial court was directed to conclude the case within six months, considering the long pendency.
“There is no prima facie material to justify continuation of proceedings against the remaining petitioners,” the Court held while granting relief.
Case Title: Chiranjibi Nayak & Others vs State of Odisha
Case No.: CRLMC No. 2832 of 2024 & CRLMC No. 1017 of 2024
Decision Date: 16 January 2026
