THE STATE OF ODISHAversusNIRJHARINI PATNAIK @ MOHANTY & ANR.

                  [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


* Author
[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.)