Orissa High Court
Sasanka Sekhar Das vs Directorate Of Vigilance on 14 July, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1837 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973).
Sasanka Sekhar Das .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Directorate of Vigilance, .... Opposite Party (s)
Odisha & Ors.
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bigyan Kuamr Sharma, Sr. Ado.
along with
Mr. Abhishek Mohanty, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Niranjan Moharana,
Addl. Standing Counsel, Vig.
(for O.P. Nos.1 & 2)
Mr. Gyanaranjan Mahapatra, Adv.
(for O.P. Nos.3 & 4)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-30.06.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.07.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner is seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings
initiated in connection with V.G.R. No. 74 of 2016, arising out of F.I.R.
No. 75 dated 20.06.2016 of Vigilance P.S., Cuttack, culminating in
Charge Sheet No. 52 dated 14.12.2023 under Sections 193, 200 and 420
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as the order dated 25.07.2024
passed by the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, taking
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
cognizance of the offences under Sections 193, 200 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) During the year 1995, the petitioner applied for allotment of an
MIG residential plot at Kalinganagar, Bhubaneswar under the
Kalinganagar Plotted Development Scheme. Upon due
verification and consideration of the application, the
Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) provisionally
allotted an MIG residential plot in favour of the petitioner under
the Discretionary Quota vide Letter No. 1731/AL dated
08.03.1996.
(ii) Thereafter, the BDA issued another letter dated 28.02.1997
stating that Plot No. K-7/152 had been allotted in favour of the
petitioner through a public lottery held on 28.11.1996. Although
the allotment had been made in favour of the petitioner,
possession of the said plot had not been handed over to the
petitioner by then.
(iii) While the matter stood thus, one Sri N. Satyaban Choudhury,
who had been allotted Commercial Plot No. 68 at the District
Centre, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar under the Self-
Financing Commercial Scheme, applied for transfer of the said
plot in favour of the present petitioner due to his financial
difficulties and domestic obligations vide application dated
31.08.2000. The BDA authorities orally directed the petitioner to
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
submit an affidavit declaring that neither the petitioner nor any
of his family members owned or possessed any plot within the
municipal limits of Bhubaneswar. Although the brochure
governing the District Centre Self-Financing Commercial
Scheme did not require submission of such an affidavit, the
petitioner complied with the said direction and submitted an
affidavit dated 30.08.2000 along with the transfer application
dated 31.08.2000.
(iv) Consequent upon the transfer application submitted by Sri N.
Satyaban Choudhury, the same was scrutinized by the BDA
and, upon due consideration, the allotment of Commercial Plot
No. 68 at the District Centre, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar
was transferred in favour of the petitioner vide Memo No.
8915/AL/BDA dated 20.12.2000.
(v) In consequence thereof, the petitioner submitted an application
for third-party allotment on 23.12.2000. Pursuant to the said
application, and after following the prescribed procedure, the
BDA authorities handed over possession of Commercial Plot
No. 68 at the District Centre, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar
to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.01.2001.
(vi) After taking possession of the commercial plot, the petitioner
applied to the Planning Member, BDA for approval of a
building plan for construction over the said plot. Upon
following the prescribed procedure, the BDA authorities
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
approved the building plan in respect of Commercial Plot No.
68 at the District Centre, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar.
(vii) In the meantime, the petitioner applied for a No Objection
Certificate (NOC) to avail of a loan for construction of the
building. Pursuant to the NOC issued by the BDA, the petitioner
executed a tripartite agreement on 27.02.2003 for sanction of the
said loan.
(viii) While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was informed that
possession of MIG Plot No. K-7/152, in respect of which the
allotment order had earlier been issued on 28.02.1997, would be
handed over, and possession of the said plot was accordingly
delivered to the petitioner on 30.03.2005.
(ix) Thereafter, the Government of Odisha, in the General
Administration Department, constituted a Task Force vide order
dated 02.08.2014 to examine irregularities in the allotment of
multiple plots to the same persons. Pursuant thereto, the BDA
authorities issued a show cause notice dated 07.12.2015 to the
petitioner calling upon him to explain his possession of multiple
plots in Bhubaneswar. The petitioner submitted his reply to the
said show cause notice on 30.01.2016 raising his defence.
However, the authorities rejected the same and, after affording
the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing on 25.08.2021,
the Secretary, OSD (Task Force), by order dated 03.09.2021, held
that the second allotment was liable to be cancelled.
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
(x) Consequently, the Secretary, Bhubaneswar Development
Authority, vide Order No. 563/BDA dated 06.01.2022, cancelled
the allotment of Plot No. 68 at the District Centre under the Self-
Financing Commercial Scheme.
(xi) Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the BDA
authorities, the petitioner approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No. 3741 of 2022. By order dated 08.02.2022, this Court
directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the
disputed property.
(xii) Thereafter, F.I.R. No. 75 dated 20.06.2016 of Vigilance P.S.,
Cuttack was registered against the petitioner under Section 13(2)
read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and Sections 200, 202, 420, 468 and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 on the allegation that, while serving as a
Government servant in the Indian Railways, he was in
possession of multiple plots in Bhubaneswar.
(xiii) Upon completion of investigation, Charge Sheet No. 52 dated
14.12.2023 was submitted in connection with the aforesaid case
under Sections 193, 200 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Thereafter, by order dated 25.07.2024, the learned Special C.J.M.
(Vigilance), Bhubaneswar took cognizance of the offences under
Sections 193, 200 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in
V.G.R. No. 74 of 2016 arising out of F.I.R. No. 75 dated
20.06.2016 of Vigilance P.S., Cuttack.
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
(xiv) Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for discharge
before the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar on
10.03.2025. The said application was rejected by order dated
26.03.2025.
Being aggrieved by the initiation and continuation of the aforesaid
criminal proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court by
filing the present CRLMC.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made
the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner submits that, in respect of persons similarly
situated to him, the Vigilance Department has dropped the
proceedings and returned their files to the BDA on the ground
of “factual error”. The petitioner further submits that, although
the BDA authorities have observed that his case also falls within
the purview of “factual error”, no decision has yet been taken to
drop the proceedings against him.
(ii) The petitioner further submits that the Vice-Chairman, BDA,
vide Letter No. 26413/BDA dated 28.07.2023, sought an
intimation as to whether the Vigilance Department had closed
the enquiry in respect of allottees alleged to have violated the
brochure conditions, so that the authority could take a decision
regarding their exclusion from the purview of the Task Force
Report upon cross-verification. It is submitted that, in response
thereto, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Cuttack,
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59vide Letter No. 4429/Vig. Cell dated 03.08.2023, informed the
BDA that certain case records had been returned after
completion of enquiry, as it was found that there was no
violation of the provisions of the Scheme.
(iii) The petitioner further submits that, in another case involving
alleged multiple allotment concerning one Sri Pratap Chandra
Mohanty, the BDA closed the proceedings by treating the same
as a case of “factual error” vide orders dated 30.11.2024 and
16.12.2024. It is submitted that the case of Sri Pratap Chandra
Mohanty is identical to that of the petitioner, inasmuch as he,
like the petitioner, had been allotted one residential plot and one
commercial plot. The petitioner submits that, despite the
similarity in facts, the BDA has adopted a pick-and-choose
approach in extending the benefit of closure of proceedings.
(iv) The petitioner further submits that the 150th Meeting of the BDA
was held on 03.04.2025 to consider, inter alia, the issue of
multiple allotments and violation of the brochure conditions. In
the said meeting, the cases of nineteen persons, including Sri
Pratap Chandra Mohanty, were treated as cases of “factual
error”. It is submitted that the BDA also recorded that the assets
of the said nineteen persons had been inadvertently included in
the Special Audit Report of the G.A. and P.G. Department.
(v) The petitioner further submits that an In-House Scrutiny
Committee meeting was held under the chairmanship of the
Secretary, BDA on 05.06.2025, wherein the case of the petitioner
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
was considered at Paragraph 8 of the proceedings. It is
submitted that the Committee observed that the order cancelling
the petitioner’s allotment was erroneous. However, since the
petitioner had challenged the said cancellation order by filing a
writ petition, the authorities did not take a final decision in his
case.
(vi) The petitioner further submits that he has obtained the order
sheets of the meetings of the OSD Task Force up to 16.08.2025,
which reveal that the authorities observed that the petitioner’s
case had been inadvertently included in the list of cases for
cancellation.
(vii) The petitioner further submits that, his case being similar to
those of Sri Pratap Chandra Mohanty and Sri Alok Samal, he is
entitled to be treated alike. It is submitted that, while the
authorities have closed the proceedings in respect of the
aforesaid two persons, the petitioner’s case has been
unnecessarily kept pending.
(viii) The petitioner further submits that the same Task Force has also
exonerated one Md. Quiser Iqbal. It is submitted that Md.
Quiser Iqbal had also been allotted two plots, namely, one
commercial plot and subsequently one residential plot. Upon
consideration of his case, the Task Force concluded that there
was no violation of the brochure conditions.
(ix) The petitioner submits that the mere allotment of a residential
plot by the BDA does not preclude him from applying for a
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
commercial plot. According to the petitioner, the allotment of a
residential plot merely signifies that a plot had been allotted in
his favour by the BDA, and his subsequent acquisition of a
commercial plot under the District Centre (Self-Financing)
Scheme does not constitute the offence of cheating under Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as there was neither any
deception nor any dishonest inducement.
(x) The petitioner further submits that, in so far as the MIG plot is
concerned, possession thereof was not handed over to him until
the year 2005. It is contended that, until possession was
delivered, he could not have declared in the affidavit or in any
other document that he owned or possessed MIG Plot No. K-
7/152. It is submitted that there is a distinction between
allotment and possession, and that the two concepts are legally
distinct. According to the petitioner, mere allotment of a plot
does not amount to possession. It is further submitted that, in
the case of leasehold properties, unless a lease-cum-sale deed is
executed in favour of the allottee, the property cannot officially
be treated as owned or possessed by such allottee. On the
aforesaid premises, the petitioner contends that the offences
alleged against him are not made out.
(xi) The petitioner submits that there was absolutely no fault on his
part in swearing the affidavit before the Executive Magistrate,
Bhubaneswar on 30.08.2000 stating that he did not own or
possess any land in Bhubaneswar, as there is a clear distinction
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
between mere allotment and actual possession. It is, therefore,
submitted that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. dated
20.06.2016, the Charge Sheet dated 14.12.2023 and the order
dated 25.07.2024 taking cognizance are wholly unsustainable
and liable to be quashed.
(xii) The petitioner further submits that the Vigilance authorities,
while investigating the matter, failed to take note of Letter No.
2851/VSS-BBSR dated 29.09.2004 issued by the Superintendent
of Police, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar Division to the Allotment
Officer, BDA, wherein, in another case, the Superintendent of
Police observed that the BDA Rules did not debar a person
holding a commercial plot from being allotted a residential plot
and, therefore, as the multiple allotment was not irregular, the
file enquiry in the said case was closed. The petitioner further
submits that, in the same matter, the Allotment Officer, vide
Letter No. 8126/AL dated 21.01.2001, informed the Inspector of
Vigilance, Bhubaneswar Division that there was no bar to
allotment of a residential plot and a commercial plot to the same
person.
(xiii) The petitioner further submits that a Coordinate Bench of this
Court, while deciding a case of a similar nature, held that there
was unexplained delay on the part of the opposite parties in
initiating investigation into the alleged multiple allotments after
several decades. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench
quashed the cancellation order on the ground of delay and
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
laches. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to draw the attention of
this Court to the delay and laches on the part of the BDA.
(xiv) The petitioner further submits that the Supreme Court, in Jt.
Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist. & Anr. v. D. Narsing Rao & Ors.1,
has laid down the principles governing the delayed exercise of
revisional jurisdiction or corrective powers after the lapse of
several years. It is submitted that the Supreme Court held that
such delayed exercise of power is not favoured in law, as
keeping actions or transactions open to challenge indefinitely
would result in avoidable and endless uncertainty in human
affairs. It was further held that, even where no period of
limitation is prescribed, the authority must exercise such power
within a reasonable time, particularly where third-party rights
have intervened. The Supreme Court further observed that even
in cases involving fraud, such power must be exercised within a
reasonable period from the discovery of the alleged fraud, and
that merely describing an act or transaction as fraudulent cannot
justify an indefinite extension of time for taking corrective
measures.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made
the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before
this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine.
1
2015 (3) SCC 695.
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
(i) The opposite parties submit that the petitioner was allotted
Plot No. K-7/152 on 28.02.1997 pursuant to his application
accompanied by an affidavit dated 27.09.1995 sworn before the
Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar under the Kalinganagar
Plotted Development Scheme, 1991 of the BDA under the
Discretionary Quota.
(ii) The opposite parties submit that, on 30.08.2000, the petitioner
furnished a false affidavit sworn before the Executive
Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in order to secure the transfer of
Commercial Plot No. 68 at the District Centre (Self-Financing
Commercial Complex), Chandrasekharpur in his favour. It is
submitted that, in the said affidavit, the petitioner concealed
the fact that Plot No. K-7/152 had already been allotted to him
on 28.02.1997 and falsely declared that neither he nor any of his
family members owned or possessed any residential site, shop-
cum-residential site, shop, commercial site, house or flat within
the jurisdiction of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Area or within
any of the villages falling under Pipili Tahasil covered by the
Bhubaneswar Master Plan.
(iii) The opposite parties submit that, on 31.01.2001, the petitioner
took physical possession of Commercial Plot No. 68 at the
District Centre (Self-Financing Commercial Complex),
Chandrasekharpur on the strength of the aforesaid false
affidavit and by concealing the material fact of the earlier
allotment of Plot No. K-7/152 in his favour.
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
(iv) The opposite parties further submit that the Gazette
Notification dated 30.01.2015 issued by the Government of
Odisha provides, inter alia, that the General Administration
(Vigilance) Department shall enquire into cases of multiple
allotments made on the basis of false affidavits or misleading
information in violation of the relevant scheme provisions and
initiate appropriate criminal action. It is further provided
therein that the BDA, OSHB, CDA and O.A. Department shall
cancel multiple allotments and additional units allotted to
ineligible individuals or families, as identified by the Task
Force, and resume the same. The Notification further stipulates
that the BDA, CDA and OSHB shall cancel all allotments of
plots, houses and flats made under the Discretionary Quota
after 01.01.1995, including pre- and post-possession transfers,
and resume the same to the concerned authorities.
(v) The opposite parties further submit that, pursuant to the
Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2015 issued by the
Government of Odisha, the BDA cancelled the allotment of
Commercial Plot No. 68 at the District Centre (Self-Financing
Commercial Complex), Chandrasekharpur. It is submitted that
cancellation of the said allotment does not, in any manner,
efface the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner by
filing an affidavit on oath containing false statements and by
concealing material facts with the deliberate and dishonest
intention of obtaining another plot, thereby cheating the
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
Government/BDA. Accordingly, it is submitted that the
petitioner is liable to face trial for the offences alleged.
(vi) The opposite parties further submit that the allegations against
the petitioner attract the offences punishable under Sections
193, 200 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(vii) The opposite parties further submit that, in view of the
aforesaid factual and legal position and the materials collected
during investigation, including the charge sheet, the offences
alleged against the petitioner are prima facie made out. It is
submitted that the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has
already been rejected and the said order has not been assailed.
According to the opposite parties, the case is pending for
framing of charge and trial at the instance of the petitioner. It is
further submitted that, in the absence of any challenge to the
order rejecting the discharge petition, the F.I.R., the charge
sheet and the order taking cognizance continue to hold the
field. The opposite parties further contend that the pleas raised
and the documents relied upon by the petitioner are matters
for trial and cannot be examined at this stage by undertaking a
mini trial while exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court.
(viii) The opposite parties further submit that reliance is placed on
the decisions of the Supreme Court in CBI v. Aryan Singh2;
State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr. Anup
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 379.
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
Kumar Srivastava3; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander4; M.E.
Shivalingamurthy v. CBI, Bengaluru5; Bhawna Bai v.
Ghanshyam6; State by Karnataka Lokayukta v. M.R.
Hiremath7; and State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan8, in
support of the settled principle that, at the stage of framing of
charge or while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is not required to
conduct a mini trial or appreciate the evidence in detail and
need only examine whether the materials on record disclose a
prima facie case.
IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
6. The principal question which falls for consideration of this Court in
the present case is whether the allegations contained in the F.I.R., the
materials placed on record and the charge sheet disclose the
commission of offences under Sections 193, 200 and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner, warranting continuation of
the criminal proceedings, or whether the same are liable to be quashed
in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
3
(2017) 15 SCC 560.
4
(2012) 9 SCC 460.
5
(2020) 2 SCC 768.
6
(2020) 2 SCC 217.
7
(2019) 7 SCC 515.
8
(2014) 11 SCC 709.
Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
7. At the outset, it would be apposite to take note of the settled
principles governing exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is
to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse of
the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. At the stage of
considering a prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings, this Court
is not expected to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or
undertake an appreciation of the materials placed on record as would
be done during the course of trial.
8. The principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been authoritatively laid down by the
Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal9, wherein it was
observed:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we have given the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face9
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”
9. In the present case, the prosecution case is that the petitioner, despite
having been allotted MIG Plot No. K-7/152 under the Kalinganagar
Page 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
Plotted Development Scheme, submitted an affidavit dated 30.08.2000
before the Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar while seeking transfer
of Commercial Plot No. 68 under the District Centre (Self-Financing
Commercial Scheme), wherein he declared that neither he nor any of
his family members owned or possessed any residential, commercial
or other plot within the specified areas. It is alleged that the said
declaration was false and that the petitioner suppressed the material
fact regarding the earlier allotment of MIG Plot No. K-7/152, thereby
inducing the authorities to transfer the commercial plot in his favour.
10. Conversely, the petitioner has sought to defend the said declaration
by contending that though allotment of MIG Plot No. K-7/152 was
made in the year 1997, possession of the said plot was delivered only
on 30.03.2005. According to the petitioner, mere allotment cannot be
treated as possession and, therefore, the declaration made in the
affidavit dated 30.08.2000 cannot be said to be false. It is also
contended that the BDA itself, upon subsequent scrutiny, found
several cases of multiple allotments to be cases of “factual error” and
that similarly situated persons were granted relief.
11. Upon a perusal of the record, this Court finds that the aforesaid
contention raised by the petitioner essentially relates to the factual
correctness and interpretation of the declaration made in the affidavit
dated 30.08.2000. The question as to whether the petitioner was
required to disclose the earlier allotment of MIG Plot No. K-7/152,
notwithstanding the fact that possession thereof had not been
Page 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
delivered by then, would require examination of the relevant scheme,
the terms and conditions of allotment and the evidence available on
record. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake such an exercise to
determine the truthfulness of the declaration made by the petitioner.
The defence of the petitioner that there exists a distinction between
allotment and possession is essentially a matter for consideration
during trial. Similarly, whether such distinction had any bearing on
the affidavit submitted by the petitioner is also a matter which
requires adjudication on the basis of evidence.
12. Further, the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the subsequent
proceedings before the BDA and the Task Force, contending that his
case was similar to other cases where the proceedings were closed on
the ground of “factual error”. It has also been contended that the order
cancelling the commercial plot has been challenged before this Court
and an interim order of status quo has been granted. In this regard, it
is the considered view of this Court that the subsequent
administrative proceedings before the BDA or the Task Force cannot
solely determine the question as to whether the petitioner had made a
false declaration in the affidavit submitted before the Executive
Magistrate or whether such declaration resulted in any dishonest
inducement for obtaining the commercial plot. The question of
criminal liability has to be examined independently on the basis of the
materials collected during investigation.
13. Coming to the contention regarding delay in initiation of proceedings,
it was submitted by the petitioner that the issue of multiple allotments
Page 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
was examined after considerable delay and that this Court, in similar
matters, has interfered on the ground of delay and laches. There can
be no dispute with the proposition that unexplained delay in exercise
of administrative powers is a relevant consideration. However, in the
present proceedings, this Court is not examining the validity of the
cancellation order passed by the BDA, but the sustainability of the
criminal proceedings arising out of the alleged false affidavit and
suppression of material facts.
14. Similarly, the contention that similarly situated persons have been
granted relief may also be a relevant circumstance. However, parity
cannot be claimed as a matter of right in criminal proceedings where
the allegations and materials against each accused have to be
examined independently.
15. It is reiterated that at the stage of considering an application for
quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is not required to conduct
a mini trial or examine the probative value of the materials collected
during investigation. If the materials disclose a prima facie case
requiring adjudication, the proceedings ought not to be stifled at the
threshold.
16. It is also well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot
be invoked to adjudicate disputed questions of fact or to evaluate the
defence sought to be put forth by an accused. At the stage of
considering a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, this Court is only required to ascertain whether the
Page 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
uncontroverted allegations and the materials collected during
investigation disclose a prima facie case. The correctness or otherwise
of the rival versions is a matter to be tested during trial upon
appreciation of evidence.
17. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner, if taken at their
face value, disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The
question as to whether the affidavit contained a false declaration,
whether there was concealment of a material fact and whether such
concealment resulted in dishonest inducement are matters which
require appreciation of evidence during trial.
18. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present case
does not fall within the parameters warranting interference under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The materials available
on record disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner and the
continuation of the criminal proceedings cannot be said to amount to
an abuse of the process of law.
V. CONCLUSION:
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
present CRLMC. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed.
20. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for the
purpose of deciding the present application and shall not prejudice
the petitioner or influence the learned trial court while adjudicating
the matter in accordance with law.
Page 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59
21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated 14th July 2026/
Page 22
