The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Prashant @ Prasant Kumar Senapati …. -versus- State of Odisha (Vig.) …. Appellant Mr. B. K. Dhal, Advocate Respondent Mr. Sanjay Das Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 25.06.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. By means of this revision application, the Petitioner has called into question the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Special C.J.M. (VIG.), Bhubaneswar in VGR No.46 of 2016, arising out of Vigilance Cell, Cuttack Case No.44 of 2016. 2.
Facts
The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a retired employee of UCO Bank. On 10.07.1991, he applied for a Middle-Income Group (MIG) plot under the Kalinga Nagar Plotted Development Scheme, 1991, floated by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA), situated within Subudhipur Gram Panchayat, Bhubaneswar. Pursuant to the application and upon payment of the required fees, the Petitioner was provisionally allotted a general MIG plot bearing Registration No. KNM- 0125/93. Subsequently, vide letter No. 13566/AL/BDA, CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 1 of 8 Bhubaneswar dated 10.11.1997, final allotment was made and physical possession was handed over to the Petitioner. While the Petitioner remained in possession of the said plot, BDA, in collaboration with Keshari Estate Pvt. Ltd., launched a separate housing project under the Lingaraj Vihar Housing Scheme, Phase-II at Mouza Pokhariput. The Petitioner applied for an MIG-II house under this Scheme and deposited all requisite amounts in terms of the terms and conditions of allotment. Vide letter dated 21.04.2001, the Petitioner was informed that one MIG-II category house was allotted in his favour, subject to deposit of the balance sum within three months. Accordingly, the Petitioner availed a bank loan and duly deposited the amount. In due course, public lottery was conducted by BDA on 21.12.2001 for allotment of HIG-II/MIG- I/MIG-II and LIG category houses under the Lingaraj Vihar Housing Scheme, Phase-II at Mouza Pokhariput. The Petitioner emerged successful and House No. C-134 under the MIG-II category was allotted to him. The Petitioner, vide letter dated 31.01.2002, was intimated of this allotment and was subsequently called upon to take physical possession of the same, which was handed over upon deposit of Rs.5,000/- towards electricity charges. More than two decades later, the General Administration Department, Government of Odisha, vide order No. SER-IAS- 0010-2014(H)-21545-AIS-I dated 02.08.2014, constituted a Task Force to scrutinise multiple allotments of plots/houses/flats and to initiate appropriate action against allottees for furnishing false affidavits or suppressing material facts. On the basis of the said directive, Vigilance Cell, Cuttack, registered Vigilance Cell Case No. 44 of 2016 against the Petitioner and other officials of the BDA under various provisions of the IPC read with Sections 13(2) and CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 2 of 8 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet No. 23 dated 14.11.2023 was submitted before the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, and cognizance was taken in VGR No. 46 of 2016. Being aggrieved by the continuance of these proceedings, the Petitioner initially moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.3505 of 2018, which stood dismissed for default, and a restoration application in CMAPL No. 356 of 2021 remains pending. Meanwhile, pursuant to the Task Force’s enquiry report dated 23.11.2021, the BDA, by order dated 25.11.2021/26.11.2021, cancelled the allotment of House No. C-134 at Lingaraj Vihar Housing Scheme, Phase-II, Mouza Pokhariput, where the Petitioner and his family had been residing for more than twenty years. This cancellation was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12117 of 2022, where an order of status quo has been granted and the matter is sub-judice. Meanwhile, on account of repeated summoning and threats of arrest by the Vigilance Department, the Petitioner moved this Court in ABLAPL No.7567 of 2022 and, upon directions of this Court, was released on bail after surrendering before the trial Court on 24.08.2024. In these circumstances, the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, passed the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby and denying all allegations, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Revision Petition to assail the impugned order dated 19.03.2025. 3. In the course of hearing this Revision, it was vehemently
Legal Reasoning
there is no prima facie material against the Petitioner to make him CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 3 of 8 liable under the offences alleged. Learned counsel further submitted that the allotment of the houses in favour of the Petitioner was made at the relevant time on the basis of an affidavit filed by him stating that he did not own any house or house site, either in his own name or in the names of his spouse or children, within the municipal area. It was contended that the area under which the allotment was made was included within the municipal limits only much after the allotment of the house, and as such, the prosecution’s claim that the Petitioner had multiple allotments within the municipal area is incorrect. Accordingly, it was argued that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 4. Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the State (Vigilance), on the other hand, submitted that the assertions made by the Petitioner regarding the correctness of the information furnished in his affidavit before the authority at the time of allotment were false to the knowledge of the Petitioner. Learned counsel contended that both the houses and house sites were allotted on the basis of information supplied by the Petitioner, which was untrue, and therefore, there is no merit in his plea for discharge. According to Mr. Das, the grounds on which the Petitioner seeks discharge could at best form part of his defence, which can only be examined during the trial. Furthermore, it was argued that ample documentary evidence exists to implicate the Petitioner and to require him to stand trial. Hence, Mr. Das submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is perfectly justified and calls for no interference. CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 4 of 8 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Odisha -Vrs.- Pratima Mohanty reported in (2020)16 SCC 703 while deciding the principles to be followed in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C called for to follow the principles as under:- “6.2 It is trite that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation the charge sheet has been filed. At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducing the minitrial. As held by this Court the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case referred to K. Raju vs. Bangalore Development Authority reported in 2011 (2) AIR KAR R 453, as under:- “8…..It is well established that a public body invested with statutory powers has to take care not to exceed or abuses its powers. It must act within the limits of authority committed to it. BDA is a custodial of public property. It is not as free as an individual in selecting the recipients for its largess. For allotment objective of criteria/procedure has to be evolved based on vision transparent properties, and a CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 5 of 8 that a non- arbitrariness. In such action, public interest has to be prime guiding consideration.” 6. Having perused the facts, the allegations, and the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the core issue lies in whether there exists prima facie material to substantiate the Petitioner’s culpability under the charged provisions. The Petitioner claims that at the relevant time of application and allotment under the Kalinga Nagar plotted Development Scheme and the Lingaraj Vihar Housing Scheme, he had no property falling within the Bhubaneswar municipal limits and that the two allotments were governed by distinct eligibility criteria under separate schemes. The Petitioner further asserts that the inclusion of Subudhipur Gram Panchayat under the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation was subsequent to the allotment, rendering the charge of misrepresentation in his affidavit untenable. On the other hand, the Vigilance Department contends that the Petitioner suppressed material facts to obtain multiple allotments under public schemes, contrary to the applicable policies, and that the present proceedings ought to be tested in trial rather than in summary jurisdiction under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The materials placed before the trial Court at the stage of charge include copies of the allotment letters, the Petitioner’s affidavit of eligibility, and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the BDA officials who handled the Petitioner’s applications. 7. While the Petitioner emphasises that the Kalinga Nagar plot, Mouza Ghatikia, was outside municipal limits at the time of allotment, this is a mixed question of fact and law, intertwined with documentary and oral evidence, which cannot be conclusively decided without a full-fledged trial. Whether the Petitioner was CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 6 of 8 aware of the extension of municipal boundaries, and whether his affidavit at the time of applying for the Lingaraj Vihar house was factually accurate or misleading, are matters that necessarily require adjudication after appreciation of evidence during trial. Equally significant is the State’s argument that any procedural infirmity in allotment, if proved, would reflect upon the public servants of BDA and the Petitioner jointly, attracting the rigour of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, given the settled position that at the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge under Section 239 of CrPC, the trial Court is not to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence but to assess whether the accusation discloses a prima facie case, this Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient material to proceed to trial. Furthermore, a trial Court’s view cannot be discouraged merely because another view is possible on the strength of defence evidence. 8. It is apt to mention here that in the allotment of the houses to the Petitioner in multiple within the municipal area, if any, in connivance of the employees of BDA/the authorities of General Administration is an act subversive of their conduct in the capacity of public servant. The non-consideration of vital aspect in the application at the time of allotment of the houses, clearly suggests the mala fide of the employees concerned. The submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that at the time of the application made by him for allotment of houses under the Scheme of the Government and his statement made in the affidavit denying any house/house sites within the Bhubaneswar Municipal area could at best be a ground for him to relegate from the charges on merit but apparently it does not give him an immunity to get rid of the allegations but to face the trial. CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 7 of 8 9. Adhering to the principles as referred above in the decisions in the matter of Pratima Mohanty (Supra), this Court finds no illegality or in propriety in the order impugned passed by the learned Special C.J.M. (Vig.), Bhubaneswar and as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere therewith. 10. The CRLREV being devoid of merit stands dismissed. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge A.K.Pradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 26-Jun-2025 16:06:17 CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 8 of 8
Arguments
argued by Mr. B. K. Dhal, learned counsel for the Petitioner, that