LexTHE STATE OF ODISHA versus NIRJHARINI PATNAIK @ MOHANTY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.