* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 56 : 2024 INSC 346
The State of Odisha
v.
Nirjharini Patnaik @ Mohanty & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2270 of 2024)
26 April 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Chargesheet was filed against the Respondents in an FIR filed
alleging a widespread conspiracy involving forgery of documents to
facilitate the illegal transfer of valuable government land to private
entities. SDJM, Bhubaneshwar passed an order of cognizance of
offence u/s 420,467,468,471,477(A),120B and 34 IPC and issue
of process against the Respondents. Whether the High Court
was justified in quashing the order taking cognizance against the
Respondents.
Headnotes
Quashing- Decision of High Court to quash the proceedings
at preliminary stage, when the case is linked to a larger
conspiracy involving government lands:
Held: The investigation into Respondent No. 1 (accused no. 7)
and Respondent No. 2 (accused no. 10) reveals their critical
roles in the misuse of GPA and subsequent property transactions,
presenting a strong prima facie case for further examination –
Lands in the heart of Bhubaneswar city were acquired for as
little as Rs. 9,000/- per acre, whereas the prevailing market rates
exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs per acre – Such drastic undervaluation
raises substantial questions regarding the intent behind these
transactions, indicative of a deliberate scheme to evade appropriate
stamp duties and registration fees, causing considerable loss to
the state – Respondent No. 1, who is the wife of Respondent
No. 2, the Managing Director of M/s Z Engineer’s Construction
Pvt. Ltd., was central to the planning and execution of these
transactions – Both respondents, along with their connections
in the Real Estates Developers Association and their familiarity
with key figures in the real estate sector, played pivotal roles in
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 57
The State of Odisha v. Nirjharini Patnaik @ Mohanty & Anr.
this conspiracy – Dismissing the case at the preliminary stage,
especially when linked to a broader pattern of similar frauds
involving government lands as part of a larger conspiracy, risks
undermining the integrity of multiple ongoing investigations and
judicial processes – Such a decision would be detrimental to the
investigation of similar fraudulent schemes against public assets –
The High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings was based on
an incomplete assessment of the facts, which could only be fully
unraveled through a detailed trial process – The nature and extent
of the alleged conspiracy, the involvement of the respondents,
and the actual harm caused to the public exchequer need to be
judiciously examined in a trial setting – The High Court has hastily
concluded that there is no evidence to show meeting of minds
between the other accused persons and the Respondents which
in our considered opinion, can only be decided after a thorough
examination of evidence and witnesses by the Trial Court. [Paras
5,6,7,8 and 9]
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Quashing; Conspiracy; Forgery; Illegal transfer; Government land,
Public asset; Loss to public exchequer; Dismissing the case at
the preliminary stage; Larger conspiracy; Fraudulent schemes;
Incomplete assessment of facts.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2270
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2018 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in CRLMC No. 454 of 2017
Appearances for Parties
Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Sarvjit
Pratap Singh, Apoorva Srivastava, Advs. for the Appellant.
Siddhartha Luthra, Sr. Adv., Shubhranshu Padhi, Niroop Sukrithy, Jay
Nirupam, D. Girish Kumar, Pranav Giri, Anmol Kheta, Pradyuman
Kasistha, Advs. for the Respondents.
58 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by the State of Orissa, arises out of the impugned
judgment dated 17.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Orissa,
which quashed the order dated 26.09.2015 passed by the SDJM,
Cuttack in G.R. Case No.1771 of 2005 for taking cognizance of
offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and 34
Indian Penal Code, 18601
and directing issuance of process against
the Respondents.
3. The facts leading up to the present case are as follows:
3.1 On 20.05.2005, an FIR registered as Capital P.S. Case No.
178 of 2005 was lodged by the then Special Secretary to the
Government in the General Administration (G.A.) Department,
alleging a widespread conspiracy involving the forgery of
documents to facilitate the illegal transfer of valuable government
land to private entities. Following the FIR, the Police initiated
investigations that culminated in a chargesheet filed against ten
individuals, including the present respondents, accusing them
of engaging in a criminal conspiracy under sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 477A, 120B and 34 IPC.
3.2 The chargesheet dated 28.08.2015 detailed that the respondents,
along with other co-conspirators, allegedly utilized forged
documents such as Hata Patas, Ekpadia, and rent receipts to
manipulate judicial processes and revenue records to illegally
acquire government lands. These documents were purportedly
produced in various revenue and civil courts to secure favorable
orders, which were then used to substantiate false claims of
ownership over the disputed properties.
3.3 Central to the allegations is a transaction involving the sale
of land situated in the heart of Bhubaneshwar, initially leased
to one Kamala Devi under dubious circumstances before the
1 In short, ‘IPC’
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 59
The State of Odisha v. Nirjharini Patnaik @ Mohanty & Anr.
independence of India. After her demise, her legal heir, Kishore
Chandra Patnaik, continued to assert rights over the property
based on this lease, which had been previously declared
non-genuine by the competent authorities. Despite adverse
findings, the OEA Collector and subsequent judicial rulings
set aside earlier decisions and reinstated the lease, albeit
amidst allegations of document manipulation and improper
legal proceedings.
3.4 In the year 2000, Kishore Chandra Patnaik, through a General
Power of Attorney2
, granted Anup Kumar Dhirsamant (accused
no. 5), a real estate developer, the authority to manage and
dispose of the property. It is alleged that this GPA was later
found to be interpolated towards transactions favourable to the
Respondents and the other accused persons. Following the
interpolation, Dhirsamant executed sales of substantial portions
of the land to the respondents at rates grossly undervalued,
as per the market rates at the time and transactions that were
finalized without proper scrutiny of the title’s legitimacy or the
GPA’s authenticity.
3.5 On 26.09.2015, the SDJM, Bhubaneshwar passed an order of
cognizance for offence u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B)
and 34 IPC and issue of process against the Respondents
and the other accused persons which was challenged by the
Respondents before the High Court.
3.6 The High Court in its impugned judgment, quashed the order
taking cognizance against the respondents. It reasoned
that there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy directly
implicating the respondents and criticized the preliminary
stage of judicial scrutiny as overly thorough, contrary to the
standards required for prima facie evaluation at the stage of
taking cognizance.
4. The appellant-State contends that the High Court overlooked
circumstantial evidence suggestive of a broader conspiracy involving
the respondents, particularly highlighting their professional acumen
in real estate, which should have informed them of the dubious
2 In short, “GPA”
60 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
nature of the transactions. Furthermore, the State argued that the
High Court failed to appreciate the severity of the offences involved
and the potential implications for governance and public trust in the
administration of land records.
5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court is of the belief
that the impugned order of the High Court merits reconsideration. The
investigation into Respondent No. 1 (accused no. 7) and Respondent
No. 2 (accused no. 10) reveals their critical roles in the misuse of
GPA and subsequent property transactions, presenting a strong
prima facie case for further examination. Initially, Kishore Chandra
Patnaik granted a GPA to M/s Millan Developer and Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
represented by Anup Kumar Dhirsamanta. This GPA was registered
outside the proper jurisdiction by including a small, unrelated parcel
of land to falsely extend the Sub-Registrar of Khandagiri’s authority.
This setup was key to the subsequent illegal activities.
6. The manipulation of the GPA where specific terms were altered to
misrepresent the authority granted, was carried out with the help of
one Ajya Kumar Samal, a junior clerk (accused no.3). This act of
forgery was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the legal procedure
for transferring property. Following this forgery, extensive lands were
sold at significantly lowered values. Specifically, lands in the heart
of Bhubaneswar city were acquired for as little as Rs. 9,000/- per
acre, whereas the prevailing market rates exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs
per acre. Such drastic undervaluation raises substantial questions
regarding the intent behind these transactions, indicative of a
deliberate scheme to evade appropriate stamp duties and registration
fees, causing considerable loss to the state. Crucially, part of this
land was bought under suspicious conditions by Respondent No. 1
and Puspa Choudhury (accused no.8), in transactions managed by
Prahallad Nanda (accused no. 2), who was temporarily in charge of
the Sub-Registrar’s office. The intentional undervaluation of this land
and the strategic involvement of Respondent No. 1, in conjunction with
the revocation of the GPA due to its fraudulent tampering, highlight
a clear scheme to misappropriate government property and incur
losses upon the public exchequer.
7. Furthermore, Respondent No. 1, who is the wife of Respondent No.
2, the Managing Director of M/s Z Engineer’s Construction Pvt. Ltd.,
was central to the planning and execution of these transactions.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 61
The State of Odisha v. Nirjharini Patnaik @ Mohanty & Anr.
Both respondents, along with their connections in the Real Estates
Developers Association and their familiarity with key figures in the
real estate sector, played pivotal roles in this conspiracy. Their
professional positions and industry influence were misused to facilitate
and conceal these transactions.
8. This Court believes that dismissing the case at the preliminary stage,
especially when linked to a broader pattern of similar frauds involving
government lands as part of a larger conspiracy, risks undermining
the integrity of multiple ongoing investigations and judicial processes.
Such a decision would be detrimental to the investigation of similar
fraudulent schemes against public assets.
9. Therefore, this Court finds that the High Court’s decision to quash the
proceedings was based on an incomplete assessment of the facts,
which could only be fully unraveled through a detailed trial process.
The nature and extent of the alleged conspiracy, the involvement of
the respondents, and the actual harm caused to the public exchequer
need to be judiciously examined in a trial setting. The High Court
has hastily concluded that there is no evidence to show meeting of
minds between the other accused persons and the Respondents
which in our considered opinion, can only be decided after a thorough
examination of evidence and witnesses by the Trial Court.
10. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of
the High Court is set aside. The trial to proceed in accordance with
law against the respondents also. As the FIR is of the year 2005,
the Trial Court is directed to decide the trial expeditiously.
Headnotes prepared by: Result of the case:
Adeeba Mujahid, Hony. Associate Editor Appeal allowed.
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)
