Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 346
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Khajuria
Date: 2024.04.26
17:38:02 IST
Reason:
SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 1 of 9
1
Code, 1860 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 2 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,
2
through a General Power of Attorney , granted
Anup Kumar Dhirsamant (accused no. 5), a real
2
In short, “GPA”
SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 3 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 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
SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 4 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 Dhirsamanta. This
SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 5 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 6 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 7 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 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,
SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 8 of 9
the Trial Court is directed to decide the trial
expeditiously.
………………………………..……J
(VIKRAM NATH)
………………………………..……J
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI
APRIL 26, 2024
SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 9 of 9