“Something Is Rotten In Denmark”- Orissa High Court Refers To Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ While Transferring Investigation To EOW
The Orissa High Court has handed over investigation to EOW (Economics Offences Wing) in a case involving an alleged illegal transfer of Rs. 1 crore from Bank accounts.
The Court was dealing with an Application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
A Single Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho remarked, “Something is rotten in Denmark” said Marcellus in the play “Hamlet” written by Shakespeare. This reflects the nature of investigation in the present case. … The Opposite party No.5 was arrested on 08.08.2024. Letter was issued to different Banks on for freezing the accounts of the accused persons. his accounts on 17.08.2024 and 31.08.2024.”
The Bench took note of the fact that there is no entry in the case diary nor any mention in the report that any vehicle or gold belonging to the accused persons have been seized during investigation.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appeared for the Petitioner while Senior Advocate D.P. Nanda, Advocate Biswajit Nayak, and Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) Sarita Moharana appeared for the Opposite Parties.
Factual Background
The Petitioner filed an FIR against the Opposite Party (accused) who was working as a computerist and accountant in his office since 2018. He had allegedly misappropriated a lot of money. Based on the Complaint, a case under Sections 408, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was registered against the accused. It was alleged that the accused used to receive cheques and withdraw money from office and used the software password, OTP, and server of the office. It was further alleged that using his personal laptop, he illegally transferred approximately Rs. 1 crore from the four Federal Bank accounts of the informant into his own accounts and also to his wife’s account in a phased manner. He, his wife and 11-year-old son, had been staying in the house of the informant.
Allegedly, getting some information that his illegal activities had been discovered, the accused left with his family and returned alone to the office. It was also alleged that he confessed his guilt that he did all those frauds and promised to repay the misappropriated amount gradually. But later, allegedly his wife threated the informant’s wife over phone stating that her husband would send them to jail. It was further alleged that the accused had taken a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- in cash from wife of the informant over a period of time, under the pretext of being used for official expenses. Being aggrieved by the nature and pace of investigation, the informant filed an Application before the Magistrate to monitor the investigation of the case and direct the Investigating Officer (IO) to apprehend the absconding co-accused. As his prayer was partly allowed, the Petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “Preliminary chargesheet was submitted on 06.08.2024 against the opposite parties No.5 for commission of offences under Sections 408, 506 of IPC read with Sections 66(C)(D) of I.T. Act, keeping investigation open under Section 193(9) of the BNSS. But what investigation was conducted after 13th January 2025 is not apparent from the case diary.”
The Court said that in spite of knowledge that the demat accounts were being operated by the accused persons, the IO did not freeze the same immediately, although he had taken steps for freezing the bank accounts.
“As no steps were taken to freeze the demat accounts even after dated 08.05.2025 was passed by this Court. On 15.05.2025, this Court directed the S.P. Angul to take steps as deemed fit for non compliance of this Courts order and thereafter steps have been taken for freezing the demat accounts which is almost three weeks thereafter. One email in response to the letter to freeze demat account No1208340000854154, states that there is no balance in the account. The status of the other accounts are not available”, it added.
The Court noted that the apprehension of the Petitioner that the officers of Talcher Police Station (local police) lack the requisite expertise to effectively investigate a case of this nature and involving such a large sum of money therefore appears to be justified.
“The learned SDJM on 05.10.2024 had directed that the I.O. to conduct a fair and proper investigation to ascertain the exact quantum of misappropriation. It is apparent that this order has not been complied in its true spirit in view of the above discussion. … The EOW is better equipped to investigate into such cases. As it is the admitted case that the amount involved in this case is exceeds rupees one crore and as per Circular No of the EOW, cases involving transactions / misappropriations above Rs One crore can be investigated into by the EOW, investigation can be transferred to the EOW”, it further said.
The Court was of the opinion that there is no question that such direction for transfer of investigation will affect the moral of the local police, as the EOW is part of the State Police.
“There was no prayer in the application made before the learned SDJM to hand over investigation to any other agency or to seize the bank accounts or demat accounts of the accused persons. … in view of the fact that investigation has still not been completed and the circumstances discussed above, I am satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice, if investigation is handed over to the EOW”, it also added.
The, therefore, concluded that the EOW should take steps to examine and record the statements of the witnesses and ensure that the money which belonging to the Petitioner and which has been transferred from his account is secured.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Application and transferred the investigation to EOW.
Cause Title- Krupasindhu Gahan v. State of Odisha (Case Number: CRLMC No. 201 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy and Advocate Tirth Kumar Sahu.
Opposite Parties: Senior Advocate D.P. Nanda, Advocate Biswajit Nayak, ASCs Sarita Moharana, and S.N. Biswal.
