2024 INSC 346 SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 1 of 9

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(@ Special Leave to Petition (Crl.) No.5758 OF 2018)

THE STATE OF ODISHA …APPELLANT

VERSUS

NIRJHARINI PATNAIK

@ MOHANTY & ANR. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

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

SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 2 of 9

Code, 1860

1 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

1

In short, ‘IPC’

SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 3 of 9

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

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 Attorney

2, granted

Anup Kumar Dhirsamant (accused no. 5), a real

2

In short, “GPA”

SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 4 of 9

estate developer, the authority to manage and

dispose of the property. It is alleged that this GPA

was later found to be interpolated to wards

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

SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 5 of 9

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 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 Dhirsaman ta. This

SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 6 of 9

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

SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 7 of 9

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.

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,

SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 8 of 9

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 pers ons 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,

SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 9 of 9

the Trial Court is directed to decide the trial

expeditiously.

………………………………..……J

(VIKRAM NATH)

………………………………..……J

(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

NEW DELHI

APRIL 26, 2024